Do all toilets require holding tanks.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by peghall

If you read "purpose of regulations" under Chapter 1, you'll see that it doesn't apply to recreational vessels:


§ 24.01-1 Purpose of regulations.
The purpose of the regulations in this subchapter is to set forth uniform minimum requirements for uninspected commercial vessels, certain motor vessels, vessels propelled by sail carrying passengers for hire, and barges carrying passengers for hire.



--Peggie

Peggie,

You appear to be referencing a section that applies to Subchapter C of Chapter 1 of Title 46. The waste regulations are in Title 33, so not related in the least. In 33 CFR 159.3, the MSD regs, it gives you the definition of vessel, to which the rules apply:

Vessel includes every description of watercraft or other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of transportation on the waters of the United States.

Again with reference to that reg, it says that all toilets fitted on board are to have a functioning MSD, with them having their overboard discharges locked off when in particular waters. There appears to be no allowance for a direct-discharge toilet.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by pskudlarski

We are buying a beautiful HR in the Caribbean. One of two heads have it's holding tank removed to make space for AC. This seem to be a common solution in Caribbean. The law
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/159.7
seem to me quite ambiguous. I am not sure if I would be legal in US waters if I would simply wire the offending toilet outlet in closed position when entering coastal waters and use only the other one.

We were on Lake Michigan for six years. Three heads: Airhead composter, two Vacuflush. One Vacuflush was on a holding tank and Y valve and one was direct pump out. The boat had come from the Caribbean. I modified the through hull valve handles so they could be locked using over the road trucking single use numbered seals. The numbers and seal dates were recorded in the log book. This arrangement never failed to pass inspection. I was told that locks would also be acceptable. Now we are back in the Caribbean and seals are removed.

[admiralslater]

Originally Posted by Lepke

I winter on a salmon river. Sometimes there are hundreds of sport fishermen out. Besides urinating over the side, the last thing they do is dump their porta-potty in the river before putting their boat on the trailer. I never seem to have a camera ready, but I'm working on it.
I use an Incinolet. No plumbing, just a vent. On a bigger boat, a decent inverter and battery bank will run it.

There maybe a discussion on urine as it is sterile and technically safe ,but the port a potty thing is just disgraceful. I would think a call to the local wildlife officals could reap benefits

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by admiralslater

There maybe a discussion on urine as it is sterile and technically safe ,but the port a potty thing is just disgraceful. I would think a call to the local wildlife officials could reap benefits

This is the thing that most here forget; the waste-dumping laws aren't just to annoy the hundreds of well-equipped cruisers who might be out; they are also for the thousands of other boaters out there with minimal or non-existent waste-handling systems (everything from a bucket on up).

[peghall]

There maybe a discussion on urine as it is sterile and technically safe...

Actually it's not. A study in 2014 was released proving the claim that urine is sterile to be a myth: Confirmed: Urine Is Not Sterile However, that doesn't change the fact that it's not illegal to pee or--even to poop--directly into the water from aboard a vessel of any kind. It's definitely illegal to dump a portapotty or any other container into the water from aboard a vessel though.


--Peggie

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Peggie,

You appear to be referencing a section that applies to Subchapter C of Chapter 1 of Title 46. The waste regulations are in Title 33, so not related in the least. In 33 CFR 159.3, the MSD regs, it gives you the definition of vessel, to which the rules apply:



Again with reference to that reg, it says that all toilets fitted on board are to have a functioning MSD, with them having their overboard discharges locked off when in particular waters. There appears to be no allowance for a direct-discharge toilet.

It does not say all.
(1) An operable Type II or III device that has a label

There must be at least one. The others you can padlock the door as you have posted earlier.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by peghall

There maybe a discussion on urine as it is sterile and technically safe...

Actually it's not. A study in 2014 was released proving the claim that urine is sterile to be a myth: Confirmed: Urine Is Not Sterile However, that doesn't change the fact that it's not illegal to pee or--even to poop--directly into the water from aboard a vessel of any kind. It's definitely illegal to dump a portapotty or any other container into the water from aboard a vessel though.

It is technically safe. What the study found is that urine is not 100% sterile. No surprise to anyone; nothing is 100% sterile. But research has also confirmed urine from health individuals are significantly more sterile than just about any other part of the body; skin, mouth, hair, even the brain.

So from a pathogen perspective, peeing into the water (or dumping pee over the side) is way safer than, say, allowing people to swim in the water. The issue with urine could be the added nitrogen load which can promote dangerous algae growth. But even there, it would take a whole lot of people peeing to make a difference.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by peghall

§ 159.7 Requirements for vessel operators.
(a) No person may operate any vessel equipped with installed toilet facilities unless it is equipped with:
(1) An operable Type II or III device that has a label on it under § 159.16 or that is certified under § 159.12 or § 159.12a; or
(2) An operable Type I device that has a label on it under § 159.16 or that is certified under § 159.12, if the vessel is 19.7 meters (65 feet) or less in length.
(b) When operating a vessel on a body of water where the discharge of treated or untreated sewage is prohibited by the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 140.3 or 140.4, the operator must secure each Type I or Type II device in a manner which prevents discharge of treated or untreated sewage. Acceptable methods of securing the device include -
(1) Closing the seacock and removing the handle;
(2) Padlocking the seacock in the closed position;
(3) Using a non-releasable wire-tie to hold the seacock in the closed position; or
(4) Locking the door to the space enclosing the toilets with a padlock or door handle key lock.
(c) When operating a vessel on a body of water where the discharge of untreated sewage is prohibited by the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 140.3, the operator must secure each Type III device in a manner which prevents discharge of sewage. Acceptable methods of securing the device include -
(1) Closing each valve leading to an overboard discharge and removing the handle;
(2) Padlocking each valve leading to an overboard discharge in the closed position; or
(3) Using a non-releasable wire-tie to hold each valve leading to an overboard discharge in the closed position.



----

In the Great Lakes under the Joint Commission, state and provincial laws require there be no physical connection between head/holding tank and any overboard discharge fitting. Locks or ties don't cut it. Incredibly, few water LEO's in US waters know this and I've never heard of a Canadian LEO knowing or ever checking.


That only applies to Lake Champlain, not all of the Great Lakes...and it's actually a NY state law that's unenforceable against transient vessels because Lake Champlain is a navigable interstate waterway under the jurisdiction of the USCG. However, they've done such a good job of selling the idea that none of the "loopers" are willing to risk being the one to return to NY to challenge it in court, so they all comply. But none of 'em have ever been inspected so we'll never know.



--Peggie

It is true in all Canadian waters. Lake Champlain is not a "Great Lake:.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

It is true in all Canadian waters. Lake Champlain is not a "Great Lake:.

But it is deep and cold. I agree with you and I have seen the Finger Lakes also referred to a Great lakes. I guess it is a nit.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Anders

I don't know of any EU country that requires a holding tank but most forbids direct discharge in their waters. A rule that us often ignored and lots of old boats don't have a holding tank.
The only EU country I'm aware of that allows toilet discharge is UK where it's legal in tidal waters.

Lot's of old boats don't have a holding tank. True, but they do have bilges into which toilet waste can flow. Yuck, double yuck. Their toilets work almost as well as a double decker outhouse.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Lot's of old boats don't have a holding tank. True, but they do have bilges into which toilet waste can flow. Yuck, double yuck. Their toilets work almost as well as a double decker outhouse.

Nonsense. You should check to see if you have a ruptured hose, there shouldn’t be any human waste in your bilge.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

It is technically safe. What the study found is that urine is not 100% sterile. No surprise to anyone; nothing is 100% sterile. But research has also confirmed urine from health individuals are significantly more sterile than just about any other part of the body; skin, mouth, hair, even the brain.

So from a pathogen perspective, peeing into the water (or dumping pee over the side) is way safer than, say, allowing people to swim in the water. The issue with urine could be the added nitrogen load which can promote dangerous algae growth. But even there, it would take a whole lot of people peeing to make a difference.

Mike, so that explains why there are designated peeing and non-peeing sections at the public swimming pools and hot tubs, similar to what used to be designated smoking and non-smoking sections aboard airplanes and at many restaurants.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Montanan

Mike, so that explains why there are designated peeing and non-peeing sections at the public swimming pools and hot tubs, similar to what used to be designated smoking and non-smoking sections aboard airplanes and at many restaurants.

never heard of that .

Sounds like bull to me .
Please elaborate where this behavior is acceptable to pee in a pool or hot tub .
If for no other reason than so I can avoid it.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Kenomac

Nonsense. You should check to see if you have a ruptured hose, there shouldn’t be any human waste in your bilge.

Hose. What hose?

Not nonsense, just nonsuch to rupture, there be just a hole to squat over.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by newhaul

never heard of that .

Sounds like bull to me .
Please elaborate where this behavior is acceptable to pee in a pool or hot tub .
If for no other reason than so I can avoid it.

Newhaul, bulls pee [i.e., go One] in the bull pool; butt, Bull Two is yet another thing entirely.

Acceptability of behavior? Come now, let's agree to leave politics out of this thread.

Where? Surely you have been to a kiddie pool or a water park, or perhaps the Mediterranean Sea.