Vent odor

[Kings Gambit]

From sail trim to the arcane world of organic chemistry; this site has it all! After reading all of the above posts, I no longer know where we are. If you want to keep your holding tank from stinking, then pump it out after every weekend cruise with two or three rinses of fresh water from a hose ashore until only water is recovered. After it's been pumped clean, put a little fresh water in there with some of SeaLand's (paraformaldehyde) crystals (not the entire package). You should be good for quite a while. When you're using it at sea daily, dump about half of a 2-oz pack of SeaLand into the bowl and pump it into the holding tank. That should be good for 5 or so days, but when you get back pump it all out as described above. If you can dump only at sea b/c of an extended trip; use macerator discharge at 3 n.mi., flush the tank a couple of times w/ seawater using the head pump inside. When done and the tank has been purged, put in another half pack and keep going in that way until you get home and then pump/rinse shoreside. If you want to use something else, not SeaLand, please do. But, if the stuff is left in there to cook for more than a few days to maybe a week, even with treatment, it's going to produce odor that will come out the vent the first time you flush; and you'll notice it, and so will your neighbors. Good Luck!

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

You might think about spending some time...

Reading the discussions in the HM forum about holding tank odor and how to PREVENT it without the use of toxic chemicals. Quite a lot of good information has been shared over the years that you may find enlightening. And you might find the information at the link in my signature useful too.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Re: MSDSs are only required to list hazardous chemicals.

OK, but OdorlosDry (sodium nitrate), one thing I think was mentioned, appears to be toxic b/c according to the MSDS referred to it has an LC50 for rats at 1257 mg/kg; whereas for paraformaldehyde the LC50 is 800 mg/kg for rats. So, from that it appears not a matter of toxic versus non-toxic chemicals, rather, it's how toxic do you want your chemicals to be? I suppose one might then consider that one needs to use less of a strong toxin than a weak one to do the same job.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Regardless of whtat MSDS are REQUIRED to include...

It's very rare to find one that doesn't include the main active ingredient and most also include any other relevant information including handling and first aid advice. I have a folder full of 'em that do...In fact, I'd guess that a MSDS is available for just about every product on the market that's sold in liquid or powered form...at least I've never gone looking for one I couldn't find.

As for my thoughts re any "50 gallon upper limit" for the Groco Sweetank system, that's just a ballpark number that can vary considerably depending upon tank depth, shape and other factors. So few ThermoPure systems are combined with Sweetanks that accelerated breakdown isn't even a factor. And I'm not aware of any EPA evaluation of ANY marine holding tank system...they don't even get involved in Type I and II certification.

I think we've about covered it for now...at least I have.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Re: Regardless of whtat MSDS are REQUIRED to include...

Well, as I said, I'm just a bit confused. I have always thought the goal of MSDs on boats was to prevent the discharge of raw sewage near to shore. Therefore, holding tanks are devised to hold sewage to be pumped out far from shore or into a treatment facility on shore. I get that part. What we've been discussing is odor control, which means killing/neturalizing the bacteria via aeration that produce the disagreeable odor, which are anaerobes. Fine, but when we pump out wouldn't we still be pumping out living coliform bacteria which are aerobic? I thought the point was to kill the coliforms b/c they are the indicators of water quality; the dangerous ones. The toxic chemical solution therefore is to kill them all at the same time; kill the odor producers AND kill the coliforms before discharging from the macerator. Where I did I get off track here? Is it that when we pump offshore, or into a treatment facility on shore, we don't really care about the coliforms--not a factor, irrelevant? The issue instead is about the use of toxic chemicals to kill only the anaerobes when alternative (non-toxic chemical) methods may be just as effective to that end? I admit that I do need some enlightenment on MSDs, and this is helping.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

You're only a LITTLE confused...

You've confused the function of Type I and II MSDs (CG certified devices that treat waste and discharge it overboard, legally except in water specifically designated "no discharge") with function of Type III MSDs (holding tanks). Killing bacteria, virii etc IS the objective for Type I and II MSDs because they discharge treated waste into most coastal waters and even some inland waters.

But holding tanks don't treat waste (and btw, there's nothing that can be added to a tank that can turn it into a treatment device)...the ONLY function of a holding tank is to store toilet waste aboard until it can be pumped out and their contents sent to sewage treatment plants where it's (allegedly) treated/bacteria killed, or dumped at sea far enough offshore to have no impact on the coastal environment. And eliminating odor is the the only way to make storing sewage aboard bearable to the people onboard and anyone else within 50 yards of the boat when the toilet is flushed.

The most effective way to eliminate odor is to prevent it from occurring in the first place...and that requires an aerobic environment, 'cuz when ANY organic matter breaks down aerobically (with oxygen) it converts to CO2, which is odorless. That's the main principal in composting and also the reason why decorative ponds in office buildings, malls etc--and even sewage treatment ponds--always have fountains and waterfalls to aerate the water that would turn into a stinking stagnant swamp otherwise. But when organic material breaks down ANaerobically (without oxygen), it produces anaerobic gasses--sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide, which not only smell horrible but are also highly toxic and even lethal in high enough concentration--and methane, which is odorless but flammable.

Chemicals that kill bacteria are only marginally effective, requiring frequent pumpouts and rinsing to eliminate odors AFTER they've already been generated...the never ending battle that you described as necessary to do yourself. And they prevent another very important function: Live bacteria break down and emulsifies (liquifies) solids and TP, reducing sludge. Dead bacteria can't break down anything...so all solids and TP can do is dissolve and, along with the chemical residue, settle to the bottom of the tank to become sludge.

Hope that clears up at least some of your confusion.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Re: You're only a LITTLE confused...

Yeah--it does, and thanks. I'll look into improving the situation in my holding tanks on the Bavaria.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Yeah--it does, and thanks. I'll look into improving the situation in my holding tanks on the Bavaria.

Feel free to give me a shout if you'd like some help figuring out the best way to do that.

 

[thinwater]

You are confusing accute toxicity wtih chronic toxicity

OK, but OdorlosDry (sodium nitrate), one thing I think was mentioned, appears to be toxic b/c according to the MSDS referred to it has an LC50 for rats at 1257 mg/kg; whereas for paraformaldehyde the LC50 is 800 mg/kg for rats. So, from that it appears not a matter of toxic versus non-toxic chemicals, rather, it's how toxic do you want your chemicals to be? I suppose one might then consider that one needs to use less of a strong toxin than a weak one to do the same job.

LC 50 are generally 48 hour values.

Sodium nitrate, once diluted in treatment has NO toxicity, as it is a normal part of seawater. It is not volitile and cannot enter the air.

Paraformaldahyde is a human carcinogen. This was probably mentioned further down the MSDS. Also, look it up on Wiki.


So, no, this is not a meaningful way to compare hazards.

 

[thinwater]

I believe the MSD standards actually originate...

... in the Clean Water Act, which is EPA's beat. Standards are set within EPA, but enforcment is delegated to the Coast Guard. Unfortunately, too much of my life involves dealing with the CWA in industrial operations.

Yes, the EPA does get involved:
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/600r10008/600r10008.pdf

... but give the CG a free hand, since at this time the EPA is satisfied with the standards that are in place. They have MUCH bigger fish to fry.

 

[Kings Gambit]

Paraformaldahyde is a human carcinogen.

If it is, it is not so listed in the MSDS I just looked at. Formaldehyde is a Cat. 3 human carcinogen, but paraformaldehyde is not, evidently. Paraformaldehyde is a polymerized form of formaldehyde, and is a crystalline solid, not a gas. It can break down to formaldehyde under the right conditions, however.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

No...not true...

The Federal Water Pollution Act of 1977 ("Clean Water Act") created our marine sanitation laws and charged the USCG with the responsibility for creating the standard, which is set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). EPA has nothing to do with creating the the standard or even enforcement... the standard gives the EPA oversight of "no discharge" waters. 40 CFR 140.4 describes the process the the states are SUPPOSED to follow to make application to the EPA to have a body of water declared a NDZ...but in actuality the EPA just rubber stamps any application that asserts--truthfully or not--that there are adequate pumpout facilities in those waters.

The EPA also conducts some studies from time to time at the request of the other gov't agencies--the one you cited...then there's this one: http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/vwd/ndzdocument.cfm and this one: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04613.pdf and this one: http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/welcome.html

The EPA has NO jurisdiction over the USCG, so no...they don't "give the CG a free hand." It's just the opposite: the CG has jurisdiction over all the navigable waters of the US. And as for the EPA being "satisfied with the regulations as they exist," only Congress can change those. In fact, Rep Jim Saxton (R-NJ) tried to do so...for 5 consecutive years he introduced a bill that would change the Type I and II standards, but thanks to the misguided environmental lobbies, none ever even made it out of committee.

You really ought to familiarize yourself with the portions of the CFR that pertain to marine sanitation laws for builders, owners, recreational vessels and commercial vessels..and also those parts that pertain to inland INTRAstate lakes and rivers. Title 46 alone can keep you busy for a year sorting out all the provisions in it that apply to vessels ("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") vs those that apply to land operations.

Enough of this, Drew...we've just about beaten it to death. Time to move on.

 

[thinwater]

Actually, I find this intersting

Everything to do with vents has been beaten to death also, but the questions keep coming.

Interesting that the Coast Guard has independent standard setting authority--I'll need to read-up on that--when EPA has final responsibility for water quality in US waters and sets standards for shore-based discharges (NPDES and the supporting tech is my area of practice) into navigable waters. There is some friction there, which generates studies and caused my confusion. The EPA is the administrator of the CWA, but is called upon to cooperate with other agencies, often the Coast Guard specifically. If a refinery I mange discharges a million gallons per day of wastewater, it is under a Federal EPA administered NPDES permit, but all over-water transfers and response plans are subject to CG review. If an operator spills the tiniest bit of oil, it is the CG that is first notified... though generally the EPA will issue any NOVs, fines, clean-up requirements, and corrective action requests. The hand-off between the agencies is often clear as mud and it generally seems the EPA would like broader jurisdiction. Always. I can see how language--from the CWA--would encourage them:

"the Administrator (AKA EPA), after consultation with the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating, after giving appropriate
consideration to the economic costs involved, and within the
limits of available technology, shall promulgate Federal standards
of performance for marine sanitation devices..."

"The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall test
or require such testing of the device in accordance with procedures
set forth by the Administrator (AKA EPA)...."

I wonder to what extent this friction and jurisdictional overlap contributes to you assertion that the EPA "rubber-stamps" NDZ applications. It would explain a lot. There is always a difference between what is on the paper and what we see administered, and so we have courts. Ugh.

But I never expect regulatory actions to make sense. I once received a letter containing draft permit limits for a new facility that contained negative values for certain metals. I was told that a program generated the values, and since the body of water was already impacted beyond its target limit, those were the values and that our discharge would have to, in effect, make a clean spot. Though we were able to negotiate in time--lots of time--our discharge remains cleaner than the river. Fortunately it was new construction and we could design some neat things.

 

[Peggie Hall HeadMistress]

Interesting that the Coast Guard has independent standard setting authority

Not correct, nor is that what I said...CONGRESS enacts the laws (standard)...

The EPA is the administrator of the CWA, but is called upon to cooperate with other agencies, often the Coast Guard specifically.

And it is the CG who has jurisdiction and enforces MARINE sanitation laws. As I've already said, you need to learn the parts of the CFR that are applicable to MARINE sanitation...

Everything to do with vents has been beaten to death also, but the questions keep coming.

Only from you in this thread. Others are starting new threads...and I'm done here.

 

[thinwater]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I find it interesting, to ask, to read, and to learn about something new. You are not compelled to respond.