Thru-Hull for direct flushing the head contemplation...

[jonelli]

Does anybody actually use this thru-hull? I've been been thinking about all my thru hulls, and considering replacing some next haul out. I've never used this one, and I live in SoCal where I don't think I'd ever use it anyway having the macerator and the pumpout port. I can't imagine ever being anywhere I'd actually use it. I'm not going to open it while sailing, so should I just plug it up? Would this be a bad idea? It would be one less hole in the boat.
Just wondering what others think about it.

 

[Don S/V ILLusion]

I infer you have both a macerated discharge thruhull and a direct toilet discharge thruhull. if so,why? The latter serves no purpose.

 

[Rick D]

Direct discharge is legal 3+ miles, assuming that your direct discharge through hull. We sail farther out than that regularly, so use it all the time we are past that limit. Of course, it's your boat, so you can certainly do whatever suits your sailing habits.

 

[jonelli]

I infer you have both a macerated discharge thruhull and a direct toilet discharge thruhull. if so,why? The latter serves no purpose.

Correct. I already have a macerated discharge from the holding tank. The one I’m referring to is one that is direct discharge from the head toilet itself. It is connected to a Y valve just before the holding tank so you can redirect it directly out instead of the holding tank.

 

[jonelli]

For me to use the direct out (bypassing the holding tank) I would have to first switch the Y valve before the holding tank, then open the direct discharge and use the head. But when I arrive anywhere I’d have to reverse al that to flush back into the holding tank so it is only useful during sailing, and I do not sail for more than 6 hours typically, so it’s always easier to flush normal into the holding tank and macerate on demand whenever I need to empty it.

so, since it seems a bit useless to me, and I have no plans to use it, if you were me, would you just leave it as-is or plug it up?

 

[Parsons]

Many boats just have all waste go to the tank, which may have facility to macerate and dump overboard. This works fine in plumbing and in operations where it moves from an automated process to batch processing every so often. For a boat that normally stays at harbor and not doing days at sea, it would certainly simplify plumbing to eliminate the extra through-hull and Y-valve. It also reduces the off-chance that you leave it open and pump waste within 3-miles or get caught by law-enforcement with the possibility of doing that.

 

[tfox2069]

Agree with @Parsons logic here. The other thing getting rid of the Y-valve does is prevent a passenger from inadvertently making a mess. Similarly I eliminated (see what I did there) my macerator and capped off my holding tank and the thru hull at the valve. My boat sails almost exclusively in the Chesapeake Bay where I can't use the macerator or a direct Y-valve, so its useless and source of failure and stink (especially the macerator). And without either I can truthfully answer the Coast Guard that I don't have the means to pump sewage overboard, so they don't need to inspect the system and confirm I have it physically wired or otherwise immobilized so it cannot be casually/accidentally used. I had an in-depth introduction to their interest in that system when I agreed to have a Coast Guard Auxiliary inspector come aboard for a courtesy inspection years ago and had no idea if my just purchased boat had a macerator, whatever that was. That turned into a long, uncomfortable conversation. Did the same with my raw water inlet for my head when I switched to a Raritan Fresh Head.

The reason I'd argue to leave the thru hull in place, capped off, is so that a future owner can return the boat to that configuration if the future usage of the boat warranted it. And it saves you having to do fiberglass work, which I would assume would be non-trivial if you actually mean eliminating the actual thru hull.

 

[jonelli]

The reason I'd argue to leave the thru hull in place, capped off, is so that a future owner can return the boat to that configuration if the future usage of the boat warranted it. And it saves you having to do fiberglass work, which I would assume would be non-trivial if you actually mean eliminating the actual thru hull.

That's exactly what I'm wondering. It eliminates one extra thing that could fail and it simplifies the head plumbing if and when I replace it.
Although I believe that's the only metal thru-hull on my boat, so I'm not sure it's worth doing anything with anyway.