Holding tank ideas

[Bob L]

My boat (26 ft s2) has no holding tank. I've got ample room under the v-berth, but after looking at Glissando's holding tank and head installation I realized that the hoses would take up as much space under the v-berth at the tank, and I'd like to keep that space for storage.

There's another way to plumb a head - the gravity feed method:
http://www.southwindssailing.com/articl ... S0008.html

In a nutshell, all water and waste is pumped from the head to the top of an above-the-waterline vented holding tank. The discharge hose at the bottom leads direcly to the waste seacock, but just before the seacock is a y-juction (not a valve) with the other side leading to the deck-mounted pumpout. Close the seacock for holding tank mode, open it and the waste goes to the sea (after passing though the holding tank). I like the simplicity and have a handy space for an above-the-waterline holding tank. In my situation, my boat is at a marina and pumpout isn't a problem. The tank would be empty most of the time, so I don't think raising the center of gravity is a great concern. This seems too good to be true.

Thoughts??? Somebody shoot some holes in this idea.

Thanks, Bob

P.S. I've made serious progress with my boat, and finally have it in the water. I've mainly done the big things: filling unused thru-hulls (thanks Tim!), replacing all hoses that are open to/below the water (engine water intake, engine hoses, sink drain, etc.), and painting the bottom (I'm over that obsession now).

[Tim]

Go with the simplicity! I like the sound of it, and I would not repeat the installation I did in Glissando--too complex and wasteful of space. I hated installing it, and I hate the finished product--except, of course, for that Lavac head, which I love.

I think the keys to any sanitation system can be boiled down to this:

1. Minimize plumbing
2. Provide storage capacity when needed
3. Provide means to discharge holding tank to shoreside facility as well as directly overboard

The KISS system described in the linked article accomplishes all of these. If your physical space allows this installation, then I recommend you try it. I don't imagine the size tank you could possibly install would be large enough to significantely affect your center of gravity, even if full--at least from a practical standpoint. If you stuck 200 gallons up under the deck and far outboard, maybe...but that's not what we're talking about here.

Note that Glissando's system fails on point "1" above. Only through our own or others' experiences can we determine the best course of action, sometimes.

[Bob L]

Cool. Thanks Tim!

[jhenson]

Tim.

Would you be able to elaborate you thoughts about installing holding tanks and plumbing if you were doing a Triton waste system from again from scratch. My boat had a small holding tank under the port V-berth locker that had been removed by the previous owner. I have read postings from those who recomend a Ronco 9 gallon tank for the same area. I guess it makes no sense to have the tank with mirror shape for the starboard locker and plumb a Y-valve to divert waste to this side for a total of 18 gallons. Again, I appeciate your insights to this puzzle.

Joe Henson

[Tim]

While I haven't really given a lot of thought to how exactly I would redo the holding tank system if starting from scratch, I do know that I would definitely work to minimize the associated plumbing; I have hoses running all over the place, and not only were they a bear to install, but the more hose there is, the higher the risk of permeation and odor.

To that end, I would also consider using rigid PVC where possible. Obviously, this would require a series of flexible couplings (hose sections) wherever the PVC connected to the head, holding tank, or through hulls, but I believe the concept has merit. Again, I don't know exactly how I would go about configuring the piping, but it seems to me that PVC would make for a cleaner installation (visually), and would be as close to odor-free as possible.

The size of your holding tank should depend entirely on how you use it, and how convenient your access to pumpout facilities is. Your propensity to use pumpout facilities is also a key factor, laws notwithstanding. One must analyze how they plan to use their boat in order to determine how exactly to configure the system. A marina-bound boat that only spends a few weekends away needs only a very simple system, probably direct discharge into the holding tank with a shoreside pumpout.

The more cruising you do, the more important it is to build flexibility into your system. This is where overboard tank pumpout and direct overboard discharge become more important.

Installing two tanks, and interconnecting them effectively, would be impossibly complex, in my opinion. It would simply involve way too many hoses, valves, and the like. I would recommend against that approach unless the ultimate capacity was truly critical. Even then, I'd look for other options, like placing a single larger tank in the center of the Vee, as I did.

I like the concept of the KISS gravity feed system that we talked about earlier. How this would incorporate into the physical spaces of a Triton remains to be seen; space is definitely at a premium, but with some rebuilding of the lockers behind the head, there might be enough room to install a custom tank there. If I were starting over, I might explore this option. Maybe it wouldn't work out, but it does have merit.

Good luck! If the current overlegislation continues, it won't be long before you won't be able to spit overboard, so better build in a 3000 gallon gray water tank while you're at it. You won't miss your interior when it's taken up by a huge tank, will you?

[Bob L]

Tim,

Using this KISS system, how far above the head can the intake to the holding tank be? Can the head pump waste uphill by 4 feet? If so, wouldn't there be some standing water/waste left in the hose between the head and the tank? Or would that flow back into the bowl? What I'm getting at is that you could mount the tank on the ceiling, or directly above the head, like the water tank on an old-fashioned chain pull toilet. (It might be a little unsettling though with that hanging over your head.)

I guess on your Lavac head you could place the manual bilge pump right level with the holding tank intake. The line between the tank and head would be empty then.

I'm going to put this system in my boat, but will probably raise the head 18 inches to make the rise to the tank less dramatic (also safer from a flooding standpoint). The tank will be built on top of/into the vanity.

Bob

[JetStream]

As an aside on this topic, there is a very good book written by Peggy Hall (who was mentioned earlier), called "Get Rid of Boat Odors". The isbn is 1-892399-15-6. It is available from several sources including Amazon.com. At about $17.00, it is a good investment that may save you a lot of grief later. Once you read where odors come from, the mystery goes away and you can make some good decisions for your particular boat.

[Tim]

The correct installation for just about any head system requires a high loop somewhere downstream of the MSD, so the lift height shouldn't be a problem. Speaking for the Lavac, the heavy duty Henderson diaphragm pump would lift the waste to the moon if it had to. The leaky, wimpy piston pumps in most heads might be less effective, but their positive action should still lift the waste without a problem. I agree that minimizing the lift is a good idea, as much as possible.

There would remain liquid in the line from the pump to the highest point in the system (the tank, in this case), since the liquid (and other--yuck) cannot drain backwards through any head pump, at least not when it's working correctly.

I think I'd prefer not to have the waste tank hanging over my head! Disconcerting to say the least, and it would prohibit the appropriate relaxation when using the facilities...

[dasein668]

I think I'd prefer not to have the waste tank hanging over my head! Disconcerting to say the least, and it would prohibit the appropriate relaxation when using the facilities...

Too much information, Mr. Lackey!

[Peter]

With all this talk about heads, has anyone on the forum tried, or have experience with, the AirHead composting toilet?
http://www.airheadtoilet.com

It seems there would be a bit of regular maintenance and monitoring to make sure it was working, but surely no more than on a conventional head.

I'd be interested to know, as I'm a "Thetford 135" man myself :)

[Tim]

There's a fellow who has installed an Airhead on his Triton, but since he's still finishing up his project the head has yet to see service. (At least as far as I know.)

They seem kind of large to me, but I've not seen one in person.

[jhenson]

When I was at the Annapolis Boat Show this year, there was an exhibit for a device called the "Turncouple" which would allow the same plumbing to the holding tank to be used for overboard seacock for offshore sailing thru the use of inline couplings and threaded plugs. Would there be any advantage to this over a Y-valve and seperate plumbing to each device? I have no idea of the price of the couplings. I don't think they are given on ther web site.

Joe Henson

[Peter]

Bob L.:
Thanks for the great link
http://www.southwindssailing.com/articl ... S0008.html

As I'm on the verge of buying a boat with no holding tank, this article is of great interest to me.
Has anyone on the forum tried this method of installation? It sounds like it's only one step up from the "Thetford" method

[Tim]

The only issue I really see with that method, on a small boat at least, is finding room above the waterline for the holding tank. Of course, it could always be built in anywhere, but at a possibly inconvenient sacrifice of otherwise usable space.

If you can find the space without severe compromise, then a simple solution like this is undoubtedly better.

[Figment]

The issue of finding space for the tank kinda leads to another question.

What's the necessary size of the tank? I know this is entirely dependent upon volume of waste, but does anyone have a handle on what's a reasonable capacity to handle two people for three days or so?

I haven't yet built my "real" tank. I just have this puny little thing rigged in so I can say I have a holding tank. It's only 3 or 4 gallons, which is laughably inadequate.

Yeah, I guess this could be its own thread, but I'm a lazy ass today. :<)

[dasein668]

What's the necessary size of the tank? I know this is entirely dependent upon volume of waste, but does anyone have a handle on what's a reasonable capacity to handle two people for three days or so?

Will you be using it for all waste? And will you be flushing properly with lots of water? What kind of head do you have?

At a guess I'd say 25 gallons is probably OK. When we were using the 18 gallon bladder we would be full every other day, and that was using a cheap-o Headmate or whatever its called, and pumping... enough... but not liberally.

This is the real reason that NDZ is such a joke on a small boat. To hold enough waste for a week or so of cruising you'd need probably a minimum of a 50 gallon tank, and probably more.

[bcooke]

What's the necessary size of the tank? I know this is entirely dependent upon volume of waste, but does anyone have a handle on what's a reasonable capacity to handle two people for three days or so?

I would say tough question. First, some individuals process more waste than others... Let's leave it at that.

Second, it depends on your cruising location and habits. I have been informed that experienced cruisers in Maine have no use for holding tanks at all. Everything there is pumped over the side. Something to think about when you are washing your dishes with raw water in a crowded anchorage...

In MY humble experience, I had the five gallon bucket this season which I filled about a third of the way with sea water before using it. I could often go 3-4 days before "pumping out" which was dictated by the slosh factor imposed by the easy healing Triton. On the other hand, when I was on a mooring in a crowded anchorage where I couldn't pee over the side the bucket filled up in less than two days. And I mean FILLED up. It made a big difference.

Since I plan on cruising as far from others as possible I am leaning towards a smallish tank <6 gallons (or whatever I can squeaze behind the head in the locker) and keeping my guest list small. Oh, and only anchoring where I can pee over the side. ;-) Keep in mind I have worked on Outward Bound pulling boats where the head for the entire 12 person crew is a five gallon bucket strapped to the mast. I guess it is all in what you can get used to.

If I had a boat with more room I would probably like 15 gallons or so of black water storage. That would cover a couple of people for several days with a grace factor to spare. I doubt there really is a true "enough" figure to cover all contigencies.

My 2 1/2 cents.

-Britton

P.S. Is it me or does questions about the head stir up more discussion than any other topic on the forum?... What does that tell you?

[bcooke]

At a guess I'd say 25 gallons is probably OK.

WOW!

Obviously this is the difference in experience between the family man and the single guy. I wish I had that much fresh water storage this past summer. Thanks for the heads up Natan :-)

-Britton

[Tim]

The reason holding tanks fill up so quickly isn't the waste itself...it's the volumes of seawater required to pump everything the whole way into the tank, which is often quite a distance (hose length-wise) from the toilet itself. And sufficient volume of water is necessary to flush the hoses nicely. So one or two people using a traditional marine toilet in this manner can easily move 20 gallons of total volume in a short time. This is a good argument (among others) for keeping the tank as close as humanly possible to the toilet discharge itself. Less hose=less overall volume.

If you're going to actually pump into and use the holding tank, then the size should be as huge as you can possibly make it--and it will still be inconveniently small. If the system is there to satisfy the letter of the law, then a tiny tank may be the way to go.

The lawmakers behind the ill-conceived waste discharge prohibitions and so forth just don't understand the impracticability of containing waste on small boats (under 100 feet). And they can say all they want about pumpouts and availability of same, but in reality most pumpout stations are inconvenient, inoperable, or otherwise impractical to visit for someone doing more than an overnight or weekend cruise. It's a well-meaning legislation that is unfortunately impractical (and unenforceable) for small boat owners in most actual use situations--and it doesn't begin to truly address the source of maritime pollution in the first place. The true culprits aren't recreational boaters to begin with, but, as usual, it's easy to target a group like boaters with legislation that the lawmakers can then pass off as a great accomplishment.

And now some of the brightest political minds are suggesting that recreational boaters should be required to withhold gray water as well? That's such an impractical suggestion that it's truly laughable.

[Jason K]

And now some of the brightest political minds are suggesting that recreational boaters should be required to withhold gray water as well? That's such an impractical suggestion that it's truly laughable.

I don't know if it's laughable as much as it is asinine. Most ecologists promote using grey water for irrigation as the bulk of the contaminants are suitable compost and the remainder don't have enough toxicity to pose a threat. It is percieved as better for the plants and far more economically - and ecologically- responsible than using drinking water.

Of course, as recreational boat owners, we are so lavishly overindulgent, who are we to complain about a small extra expense and minor inconvenience? Right?

If they only knew...

[bcooke]

Most ecologists promote using grey water for irrigation as the bulk of the contaminants are suitable compost and the remainder don't have enough toxicity to pose a threat.

Please note that it wasn't me that took the thread on a tangent...

Actually, the toxicity of the waste isn't the issue but rather the volume of nutrients in the waste. Waste water does increase levels of fecal coliform (so does rain water runoff) but I don't think these levels are what everybody is worried about in most cases.

The problem with human waste is that it is full of nutrients. I makes a good fertilizer. So good in fact that waterborne bacteria and other small organisms have a field day, gorging themselves and multiplying like there isn't a tomorrow (which technically is true for some of these short-lived creatures). The increasing population consumes an increasing amount of oxygen which reduces the amount available for everyone else. Low oxygen levels and a population of small organisms so thick they block out sunlight are the end result of excessive human waste in the water. A case of too much of a good thing isn't so good in the end.

And I agree, small boats are not the problem. That is good since nobody I know pays much attention to the regulations anyway.

That's my tangent on a tangent.

-Britton

[Jason K]

Please note that it wasn't me that took the thread on a tangent...

Maybe not, but I learned from the best.

[Tim]

I makes a good fertilizer.

Yeah, well I makes a mean brisket.

[dasein668]

The true culprits aren't recreational boaters to begin with[.]

Lessee, Combined Sewer Overflow... Raw effluent discharge from shore-based facilities on many of the islands... Manufacturing discharge into primary rivers...

If we can focus on cleaning up the primary polluters, than I think you would find that most recreational boaters would be less offended by NDZ regulations. NDZ for recreational boaters while everyone else continues to pump pollution into the ocean on an industrial scale seems a little misguided.

Perhaps Recreational boaters should be able to buy and sell pollution credits just like Industry. I'll put in a BIIIIIG tank if I can sell my credits!

[bcooke]

Yeah, well I makes a mean brisket.

I knew it, I knew it, I KNEW it!

I just knew that typo was going to come back to me....

...but I learned from the best.

I may be guilty of that...

So, do we have the head system all figured out now?

-Britton

[Robert The Gray]

on my triton I am using a bucket I got at orchard supply. I line this with a tall kitchen plastic bag. Do my business and immedietly remove the bag and store it in one of the cockpit hatches in a buckiet like this.

http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/produc ... 5Fid=16317

This becomes my holding tank. I used this for a recent four day cruise and it worked quite well. The key is the seal on the holding tank bucket.

I think this would work as well

http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/produc ... 5Fid=20669

There is no need to flush anything, no excess seawater. the waste is alone with itself reducing its bulk, no smell what so ever, except when opening the sealed holding tank bucket. every one knows how to use it, no through hulls, no plumbing. If at sea just eliminate the kitchen garbage bag and dump it overboard. if trapped down below in a storm the holding tank bucket eliminates odors. At the end of the cruise, or when nessacary I just throw the contents of the sealed bucket in the trash.

[A30_John]

At the end of the cruise, or when nessacary I just throw the contents of the sealed bucket in the trash.

In terms of environmental impact, that might be worse than just emptying the bucket over the side.

In a similar vein, I've used "Wag Bags" which are approved for landfill disposal:

http://www.thepett.com/wag2.html

However, despite the advantages of this system, I'll take a proper marine head any day.

BTW, thanks Bob for the link to the KISS head. If I can find a suitable location for the tank, I think I'll try installing one with my upcoming LAVAC refit. I'm thinking a vented loop on the intake side might be necessary tho. Any observations on that point would be appreciated.

[Tim]

The Lavac requires a special vent to be installed at the top of a high loop. The tiny plastic vents come with the head, and are installed in a small hole drilled in the hose of the loop.

This vent is necessary for proper operation of the Lavac. There are two types included; you choose one based on the overall installation (I forget the particular details of why you choose one over the other, but it's clear in the directions).

[Figment]

One of the lavac inserts allows more air into the line (breaks the vacuum faster) than the other. If your water supply is higher than the bowl of the head, you need the vacuum to break faster so that the whole water supply doesn't continue to siphon into the bowl after the vacuum of the flush has subsided.

A minor nuance if drawing water from an onboard tank. An important detail if flushing with seawater.

[A30_John]

Thanks for the Lavac info. Mine will be a seawater installation. I'm looking foward to seeing if this system will fit in my boat.

[Figment]

I just stumbled across this on a California DBW site (click)

Federal regulations (33 CFR 159.83) require that holding tanks have a means of indicating when the tank is more than 3/4 full by volume. A translucent plastic tank can meet this requirement if its location permits easy regular access for viewing contents level. Tank level monitoring systems are fairly simple to install. These typically include a sensor installed at the top of the tank and a small remote panel with a warning light that indicates when the tank is more than 3/4 full.

That's news to me. Do you all have fancy tank indicators?
This seems like an application unfit for a sight glass or dipstick. Even the "translucent plastic tank" would become less so with each use, I'd think.
Any favored products?

[dasein668]

Yet another stupid federal regulation.

I've never heard anything good about any of the tank monitoring systems. Neither the external nor the dipstick varieties.

[Ceasar Choppy]

I just installed the Accuguage made by Snake River. I have three water tanks and a holding tank and so I got the four tank monitor. This is the system that mounts on the outside of your tanks.

Was a pain to install since you need three wires from the monitor to the sensors on the tanks. Works fine on the integrated fiberglass tanks in the boat, but for some reason it won't read the holding tank correctly. I haven't had time to trouble shoot it but it was very difficult to install the sensor on the tank since it is in a tight spot and cannot be removed easily. Holding tank is polyethelyene, not FG.

I'm kinda disappointed in it since it got such a glowing review from Peggy Hall. It has gone to the bottom of my project list as winter is approaching however.

[Duncan]

Well, these guys are obviously a bit sensitive to accusations that they are full of (you know), so they have wisely decreed that it's ok to be only three-quarters-full, provided this critical distinction is carefully monitored?

But who, I ask, will watch the watchers?

[Tim]

RVs have had holding tank monitors for years, and they never work. They quickly become fouled with the stuff in the tank and provide false readings.

This regulation is so ridiculous that I can't even talk about it. Why won't these do-gooders leave us alone and actually do some legislating that might have a hope of doing something useful in one of the other 10,000 areas of life that actually need attention? "Rich boaters" are always a fine target for desperate legislators looking to pretend they actually accomplished something in office. We have a dork in the Maine state senate who routinely goes on vacation to the coast and comes back filled with wonderful ideas of how to tax or otherwise legislate boaters.

I'll never meet these silly waste withholding regulations. They're impractical, impossible to police, and ill-intentioned. I'm sick of legislation that tries to force common sense and applies unnecessary regulations to "fix" a nonexistent problem.

[Figment]

OK, I guess I knew that one would touch a nerve. :P

In all seriousness, though, what's the standard protocol for determining the level of the holding tank?
Wait for the vent to spout solids?
Pencil marks on the bulkhead after each flush?

[bcooke]

Are we sure this rule applies to all boats?

If I really feel the need to check how full my waste tank is I can drop a flexible stick down the pump out fitting. Anything over about a quarter of a tank should register on the stick.

Technically, I think this makes my tank compliant with this rediculous rule. Icky on the sticky means make haste to dump the waste...

I am definitely not going to dig out my tank to modify it for an internal indicator. I can't imagine any indicator system working for long under the kind of conditions found in waste tanks and despite what the quote said, modifying a tank for the indicator is not necessarily an easy project. What do the thousands of people with flexible tanks do?

Just what were you doing on as California DBW site anyway? You will never get that yawl mod done if you spend your time cyber surfing.

If this rule becomes actively enforced you will find me in my new home country of Canada where at least a semblence of sanity remains.

-Britton

[dasein668]

Wait for the vent to spout solids??

That's a disgusting, but actually quite effective, method for knowing when your tank is full.

I won't explain how I know this to be true.

[dasein668]

Icky on the sticky means make haste to dump the waste...

Ummm. Riiiiight.

P'raps Prudence should be renamed to Icky's Sticky.

[Tim]

I'm still trying to figure out the purpose of this regulation. What is supposedly to be gained by boats having a tank level monitor? How does this requirement help the greater good of the public? Does this somehow prevent overboard discharge? (These are rhetorical questions, since I know no one really knows these answers.)

Maybe the need to notify boatowners that their holding tank may be approaching capacity stems from the impracticality of zero-discharge laws that require boats to supposedly withhold all waste and gray water products, highlighting the impracticability of this law as well. But rather than address the core issue in a reasonable manner, why not just add additional impractical regulations on top? That usually fixes the problem, after all.

In all seriousness, though, what's the standard protocol for determining the level of the holding tank?

Pump out often, I guess.

[Rachel]

Tim, I love it when you hold forth on something that I was thinking too, but wasn't able to express in such an indignant/articulate/pointed manner. It's so satisfying to read.

If I had more time, I would launch into my diatribe on the "Spill-proof" California jerry jugs that are stupid beyond words (i.e. they make you spill, and you have to waste hours doing it, too). Clearly they were thought up by the same geniuses that have come up with this holding tank idea. (Please don't tell me these have spread beyond California while I had my back turned.)

Luckily, I don't have more time right now.

--- Rachel

[Ceasar Choppy]

If I had more time, I would launch into my diatribe on the "Spill-proof" California jerry jugs that are stupid beyond words (i.e. they make you spill, and you have to waste hours doing it, too). Clearly they were thought up by the same geniuses that have come up with this holding tank idea. (Please don't tell me these have spread beyond California while I had my back turned.)

Rachel,

Word is that some work and some don't.
I've been told that these work:
http://www.scepter.com/gc/gc_page.exe?F ... yCans&Z9=0

Although Waste Marine sometimes carry Scepter nozzles separately, the nozzle/can combo Waste sells are the ones from Blitz and they are USELESS as you describe.

Hope that helps.

[Rachel]

Ceasar ;-)

I didn't get the link to work directly, but I did find this "eco" jerry can on their website:



The nozzle looks very similar the ones that were all I could find in California when I had to buy some (not only at West Marine), but of course the innards could be different. Even if they do work well (and I'm not conceding that, you understand ;-), those protruding nozzles will still catch jib sheets, break off if they tip over, etc. -- in my opinion.

Personally, I never had any problem with the regular ones spilling. It just irks me when they try to make things "foolproof" and instead make them less functional for the rest of us. I have to laugh when I remember once years ago at work, when a co-worker was thinking about a task, and said "Now how can I make this foolproof?" Another guy there - who was known for never mincing words - shot back: "Eliminate the fools."

Of course this isn't directed at you at all, I know you're just providing more info :-)

--- Rachel

[Ceasar Choppy]

That was an old link... here is a better one...
http://www.scepter.com/gc/gc_page.exe?F ... arine&Z9=0

Rachel, I agree with you wholeheartedly and no offense taken. :) I never had a problem with these things before they started making them for the fools who required them.

Just sayin, in response to my complaining, someone pointed out that there is a difference depending on the brand of spout you have. And yes, they make storage on deck a pain too.

[Tim]

I remember once years ago at work, when a co-worker was thinking about a task, and said "Now how can I make this foolproof?" Another guy there - who was known for never mincing words - shot back: "Eliminate the fools."

A corollary to that is that one can never make anything foolproof because fools are too creative.

[Figment]

I swear I had no idea that Sail magazine was doing a "DIY holding tank monitor" article this month.
and they installed a three-stage monitor. schmancy!

[dasein668]

I swear I had no idea that Sail magazine was doing a "DIY holding tank monitor" article this month.
and they installed a three-stage monitor. schmancy!

We all know you're on the payroll of the marketing department, Mike. None of us were going to bring it up, though.

[Allen]

I have a holding tank monitor. I start tapping near the bottom of the tank, working my way up. When the pitch changes I know how full my tank is.