C&RT say don't empty your compost toilet in our bins.

[Dr Bob]

29 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

I don't have a composting loo, but the description coming from those who do, is that the product is the complete opposite of sloppy. 

I think you're being disingenuous here. 

Bags of dog poo may well be 'sloppy'.  The arisings from a composting loo just aren't. 

And what about the choices available to those who have to clean the elsans when they're left disgusting?

I think Dora is spot on here. As I said in my post above, Alan keeps on going on about sloppy smelly stuff. Alan - have you ever seen a picking line? Do you know how they work. The contents of my 'bucket' that goes in the compost bin is not the consistency to get squeezed out of a bag in a bin lorry. There are far things worse.

Have you discussed your concerns with a waste management company? Every council does waste differently and the CRT in its 'lump everything together' is the worst of them all. They could easily sort this by moving to a recycling at collection point like most 'best practice' ones do.

[haggis]

I think part of the problem for those of us who are not in favour of  solids from composting loos being put in bins  is that we don't really know what the consistency of what is being dumped is! A lot will depend, I imagine, on how "old" the solids are when they are dumped. If they are being dumped within a couple of days of being produced I don't think they will have the dry crumbly consistency of stuff which has been stored on board for weeks and has started composting. 

I think we need some photos at different stages of composting to help us understand why some folk think it is OK to bag and bin and others are against it.

 

haggis

 

[Alan de Enfield]

23 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Are the biffa people all volunteers?

 

Are the Biffa people paid to sort known waste (contents as agreed in the contracts with the waste generators), or are they being paid to sort 'offensive waste?

 

You really do seem to be struggling with the difference between composted and non-composted toilet waste.

 

 

 

18 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Alan keeps banging on that it is illegal due to waste transfer regulations. Once again we are clutching at straws. It is not clear. According to the words, and individual can put the solids +liquids!!!!! in a black bag as long as it is less than 7Kgs and only once in the 'cycle'. Think though about what this means. It has to be aimed at nappies put in a black bag then put in the wheelie bin. 7Kgs??? Sounds like nappies disposed of at 1kg per day for 7 days. No mention of 'dumpsters'. No one here knows the rules being applied to dumpsters.

 

I have mentioned Dumpsters and I know the rules Biffa apply (to me - of course C&RT may be different)

I have a contract with Biffa for the caravan site and have to regularly sign a new contract agreeing to the waste transfer legislation, and, listing the type of contents that will go into the bin.

 

Do not forget that there is a difference between 'Hazardous Waste' and 'Offensive Waste'

 

Offensive waste is :

 

Hygiene waste and sanitary protection like nappies and incontinence pads

 

And the regulations state :

 

If you’ve produced more than 7kg of offensive waste, or have more than one bag in a collection period, you must segregate it from any mixed waste.

 

Disposing of offensive waste

Offensive waste is classified as non-hazardous waste.

You must complete waste transfer notes for any waste that leaves your site. You must keep copies of all waste transfer notes for two years.

You must ensure that your waste is stored, handled, recycled or disposed of safely and legally. You must comply with your waste responsibilities, known as your duty of care.

 

Containers for offensive waste

This waste should be placed in a 'tiger bag'. A tiger bag is a yellow bag with one or more broad black stripes.

 

 

 

 

How do you propose that C&RT measure or control how many people are dumping 'offensive waste' in the bins,

How will C&RT know when it has reached the 7Kg limit ?

How many composting boaters are using tiger-striped bags ? (I know you have mentioned it in the past)

 

There is no way that the regulations can be met with the current system so I can readily understands C&RT saying, its beyond our control so we must stop it.

[IanD]

Arguing about whether the waste is sloppy or dry or sortable or not is ignoring the elephant in the room, which is that composting toilets are intended (and promoted by the manufacturers/suppliers) to be used with compost as the end product -- the clue is in the name. This is clearly also CaRTs intention, as shown in the "advice to boaters" which has been posted. Disposing of (relatively large quantities of) non-composted human waste from boats in domestic/trade waste bins is not and never has been an approved (as opposed to tolerated) method of disposal; if it's not composted, it should go into the sewerage system, either directly or via Elsan points or via pump-outs.

 

The fact that most people (three-quarters) who installed them on canal boats have been ignoring this because it's easier than doing the composting properly (and wasn't actually banned by CaRT) is why this messy situation has happened.

 

It's exactly equivalent to the "wideboats on narrow canals" problem from other threads. Everyone knows perfectly well that there are canals defined as wide (designed for and intended to be used by widebeam boats) and ones defined as narrow (designed for and intended to be used by narrowbeam boats). However some people spotted that there wasn't actually anything legally stopping them plonking a wide boat onto a mooring on a narrow canal, regardless of whether this caused issues with navigation for other people, so they did this because it was convenient for them (e.g. meant they could moor their comfortable wide boat where they wanted, for example closer to work or a desired area).

 

Once a couple of people did this successfully, more and more people thought it was a great idea -- which it is for them, if not for other waterways users -- and joined in, leading to an escalating problem which has forced CaRT to take action to try and prevent people doing this from now on. Cue howls of protest from the people who've bought and moored an expensive wideboat where it should never have been in the first place, who were basically being selfish -- doing what was best for them, and ignoring the negative effects on others. Does this sound familiar?

 

I suspect it's true that some of the people who have done the composting toilet bag-and-chuck-it thing are indeed keeping out of this discussion, not because they're scared of being shouted down but because they know that what they've been doing was wrong even though it wasn't actually banned -- and it's difficult to argue that you should be allowed to carry on doing something wrong just because you were allowed to get away with it in the past.

Edited February 16, 2021 by IanD

[Dr Bob]

13 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

I have mentioned Dumpsters and I know the rules Biffa apply (to me - of course C&RT may be different)

I have a contract with Biffa for the caravan site and have to regularly sign a new contract agreeing to the waste transfer legislation, and, listing the type of contents that will go into the bin.

So how do you deal with nappies. If you can only put 7Kg of nappies in a dumpster then that will be one family for a week. Even one family is likely to exceed that. @TheBiscuits, how many nappies did little Bob go through a week? You will be breaking the waste transfer rules each week?

[Chagall]

22 minutes ago, Alan de Enfield said:

 

Are the Biffa people paid to sort known waste (contents as agreed in the contracts with the waste generators), or are they being paid to sort 'offensive waste?

 

You really do seem to be struggling with the difference between composted and non-composted toilet waste.

 

 

 

 

I have mentioned Dumpsters and I know the rules Biffa apply (to me - of course C&RT may be different)

I have a contract with Biffa for the caravan site and have to regularly sign a new contract agreeing to the waste transfer legislation, and, listing the type of contents that will go into the bin.

 

Do not forget that there is a difference between 'Hazardous Waste' and 'Offensive Waste'

 

Offensive waste is :

 

Hygiene waste and sanitary protection like nappies and incontinence pads

 

And the regulations state :

 

If you’ve produced more than 7kg of offensive waste, or have more than one bag in a collection period, you must segregate it from any mixed waste.

 

Disposing of offensive waste

Offensive waste is classified as non-hazardous waste.

You must complete waste transfer notes for any waste that leaves your site. You must keep copies of all waste transfer notes for two years.

You must ensure that your waste is stored, handled, recycled or disposed of safely and legally. You must comply with your waste responsibilities, known as your duty of care.

 

Containers for offensive waste

This waste should be placed in a 'tiger bag'. A tiger bag is a yellow bag with one or more broad black stripes.

 

 

 

 

How do you propose that C&RT measure or control how many people are dumping 'offensive waste' in the bins,

How will C&RT know when it has reached the 7Kg limit ?

How many composting boaters are using tiger-striped bags ? (I know you have mentioned it in the past)

 

There is no way that the regulations can be met with the current system so I can readily understands C&RT saying, its beyond our control so we must stop it.

 

But surely  it isn't really "beyond our control"  how difficult would it be to provide a composting/dry toilet  bin, for the boaters concerned to buy and use tiger bags, and to be charged an extra amount for the privilege of the measures taken?  

Edited February 16, 2021 by Chagall

[IanD]

Just now, Dr Bob said:

So how do you deal with nappies. If you can only put 7Kg of nappies in a dumpster then that will be one family for a week. Even one family is likely to exceed that. @TheBiscuits, how many nappies did little Bob go through a week? You will be breaking the waste transfer rules each week?

The argument that "somebody else might be doing something wrong so I should definitely be allowed to" is never going to wash... ?

[Dr Bob]

3 minutes ago, IanD said:

which is that composting toilets are intended (and promoted by the manufacturers/suppliers) to be used with compost as the end product -- the clue is in the name.

How do you know this? The word composting is used but is this what they are meaning? You dont know that and I dont know that. Most educated users see them as 'dry' toilets even if the manufacturers use the word composting.

[LadyG]

1 hour ago, doratheexplorer said:

I'm on the fence about whether the disposal methods of 'dry toileters' is ok or not.  I've had to deal with some disgustingly unhygenic elsans.  Is bagging semi composted and dessicated poo by bagging and binning any worse?  I don't know, and I'm not sure anyone else on here does either. 

 

The way CRT have dealt with this is utterly typical of their incompetence.  If there has indeed been a change of policy then the following should have happened as a minimum.

 

1.  A proper announcement, stating the changes and acknowledging the problems these changes will create for some.

2.  The removal of all contrary information from their website.

3.  A specific date beyond which the current disposal method will not be allowed.

 

I still think the sensible thing to do would be to provide hot composting disposal alongside the bins.  If over, time composting toilets on inland boats became the norm, they could decommision the elsans which would actually save them money.  I doubt they've even looked into that though.

Having a set of composting bins in an unregulated environment will never work. On  two scores.

To be successful compost must be of suitable mixed material and generally need to be mixed if if it is to compost in less than three years. 

There are plenty of people who don't bother about which bin they use, or just throw stuff in the general area. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by LadyG

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Chagall said:

 

But surely  it isn't really "beyond our control"  how difficult would it be to provide a composting bin, for the boaters concerned to buy and use tiger bags, and to be charged an extra amount for the privilege of the measures taken?  

In theory that's fine, except that somebody would have to pay for setting up and funding the compost collection sites -- and also maintaining the bins, and cycling round probably 3 bins on each site, and making sure they weren't overfilled, and checking that the compost was done, and then taking it away and presumably trying to sell it...

 

All of which could certainly be done if the majority of boats used composting toilets, and it would be an excellent green solution to the onboard waste problem.

 

In the meantime the cost would have to be borne by the <1% of boats using the service (unless everybody else pays for it...), which would make it considerably more expensive to use than the pumpout network which is paid for by all the boats with these toilets (don't know how many, maybe 30%~50% -- does anyone know?).

 

Which means that emptying your composting toilet would cost several times more than a pumpout per pound of poo.

 

Let's see how many people would then be in favour of composting toilets... ?

9 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

How do you know this? The word composting is used but is this what they are meaning? You dont know that and I dont know that. Most educated users see them as 'dry' toilets even if the manufacturers use the word composting.

Methinks you're being ridiculous. Just go and read the promotional material for them. Failing that, look up the definition in the dictionary. I don't see how anyone "educated" can disagree with this.

 

I suspect that you know damn well how they're intended to be used, and are just trying to justify the fact that you don't do it. It's not going to work ?

Edited February 16, 2021 by IanD

[Midnight]

2 minutes ago, LadyG said:

 

There are plenty of people who don't bother about which bin they use, or just throw stuff in the general area, this includes Joe Public. In a set of flats where I once lived, some people who rented a flat had to be brought in to line! 

One miscreant was putting his refuse in the compost bin, and even denied it when confronted, it had his address inside, so he was handed the smelly bag and never did it again! Others just threw rubbish in to any bin, regardless of the numbering of bins for each flat. Those were adults, and supposedly responsible. 

 
And isn't this the problem with society as a whole? Too many self-entitled people who believe social responsibility and rules don't apply to them.

[Chagall]

2 minutes ago, IanD said:

In theory that's fine, except that somebody would have to pay for setting up and funding the compost collection sites -- and also maintaining the bins, and cycling round probably 3 bins on each site, and making sure they weren't overfilled, and checking that the compost was done, and then taking it away and presumably trying to sell it...

 

All of which could certainly be done if the majority of boats used composting toilets, and it would be an excellent green solution to the onboard waste problem.

 

In the meantime the cost would have to be borne by the ~1% of boats using the service (unless everybody else pays for it...), which would make it considerably more expensive to use than the pumpout network which is paid for by all the boats with these toilets (don't know how many, maybe 30%~50% -- does anyone know?).

 

Which means that emptying your composting toilet would cost several times more than a pumpout per pound of poo.

 

Let's see how many people would then be in favour of composting toilets... ?

I agree but consultation regarding that would be a finer way of dealing with it than shoving it under the rug and hoping it goes away.   Arbitrarily deciding it is 'not allowed' answers nothing.   How do you know if those few might be willing to bear the brunt of the cost until such time as it proved to be either a success or not. 

[doratheexplorer]

8 minutes ago, LadyG said:

Having a set of composting bins in an unregulated environment will never work. On  two scores.

To be successful compost must be of suitable mixed material and generally need to be mixed if if it is to compost in less than three years. 

There are plenty of people who don't bother about which bin they use, or just throw stuff in the general area. 

And those same people are currently abusing the facilities.  So no difference.

[Alan de Enfield]

11 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

So how do you deal with nappies. If you can only put 7Kg of nappies in a dumpster then that will be one family for a week. Even one family is likely to exceed that. @TheBiscuits, how many nappies did little Bob go through a week? You will be breaking the waste transfer rules each week?

 

 

I think you may be forgetting that the Waste regulations apply to Commercial operations and do not apply to Domestic situations.

Little Bob producing 8kg of dirty nappies per bin emptying cycle is irrellevant.

 

C&RT as a commercial operator are contrained by the laws.

 

 

2. Scope of the duty of care

2.1 Duty of care: who it applies to The duty of care applies to anyone who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats, disposes of, or are a dealer or broker that has control of, controlled waste (referred to below for the purpose of this Code as a “waste holder”).

Waste holders are a:

• waste producer – any person whose activities produce waste. This includes private sector businesses such as shops, offices, factories and tradespersons (e.g. electricians, builders, glaziers and plumbers) and public sector services such as schools, hospitals and prisons, as well as charities and voluntary and community groups. It also includes permitted operations or exempt facilities that produce waste as part of their activities. If you carry out a waste operation that changes the nature or composition of the waste, you are regarded as a producer of the waste. Waste producers play a key role under the duty of care requirements as they are in the best position to identify the nature and characteristics of the waste

• waste carrier – any person, who normally and regularly collects, carries or transports waste in the course of any business or with a view to profit, including those that produce and transport their own waste e.g. builders and landscape gardeners

• waste dealer – any person, business or organisation that buys waste with the aim of subsequently selling it, including in circumstances where the dealer does not take physical possession of the waste

• waste broker – any person, business or organisation that arranges waste transportation and management of waste on behalf of another party, such as organisations contracting out waste collection services e.g. local authorities, supermarkets and producer responsibility compliance schemes • waste manager – any person involved in the collection, transport, recovery or disposal of controlled waste, including the supervision of these operations, the aftercare of disposal sites and actions taken as a dealer or broker A separate duty of care applies to householders (occupiers of a domestic property), limited to taking all reasonable measures available to them to ensure their waste is only transferred to an authorised person. For the purposes of this Code, occupiers of domestic property are not treated as a ‘waste holder’ as defined above, when dealing with household waste produced on that property.

 

5. Occupiers of domestic property:

waste duty of care requirements As an occupier of a domestic property, you have a duty to take all reasonable measures available to you to ensure you only transfer household waste produced on your property to an authorised person. (ie a registered waste carrier, not a man with a van)

[matty40s]

You cant beat a good toilet thread, especially in a loc?kdown 

[IanD]

12 minutes ago, Chagall said:

I agree but consultation regarding that would be a finer way of dealing with it than shoving it under the rug and hoping it goes away.   Arbitrarily deciding it is 'not allowed' answers nothing.   How do you know if those few might be willing to bear the brunt of the cost until such time as it proved to be either a success or not. 

No commercial company is going to roll out a composting toilet network to serve <1% of boats without a cast-iron guarantee that it's going to work financially, and this isn't going to happen -- it would mean all the composting loo owners signing up to carry on using them and paying handsomely for the privilege (more than pumpouts) for long enough to recoup the construction costs, and this is simply never going to happen -- and probably couldn't do legally, nothing to stop boaters ripping them out and installing something else.

 

[and I did ask the question earlier of how much compost toilet users would be willing to pay for disposal, but funnily enough nobody answered -- I suspect the answer for most is "nothing"]

 

So the only way to get this to happen would be if it was funded by CaRT/government as part of a proper strategy on how to make the canals "green", like electric charging points.

 

CaRT aren't "shoving it under the rug and hoping it will go away", they're proposing to take action to stop people abusing the waste disposal system on the canals. No amount of consultation is going to make this any more palatable to the bin-and-chuck-it culprits -- they're the ones in the wrong not CaRT. The best they can expect is a phase-in period for the rule change to give them time to either replace the toilet with an acceptable one (like happened with sea toilets), or possibly show that they're using the toilet properly (multiple compost heaps on a mooring) and get CaRT to allow them to continue. But this is an enforcement nightmare, so an outright ban (like sea toilets) is the most likely outcome.

11 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

And those same people are currently abusing the facilities.  So no difference.

So because some people abuse something, we shouldn't bother trying to stop them because it's pointless -- is that what you're saying? Or that two wrongs make a right?

Edited February 16, 2021 by IanD

[David Mack]

18 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

How do you know this? The word composting is used but is this what they are meaning? You dont know that and I dont know that. Most educated users see them as 'dry' toilets even if the manufacturers use the word composting.

 

The manufacturers generally sell their toilets to a wider market than just boats. So those who use them for glamping properties or houses away from mains drainage are in a much better position to carry out the full composting process than the majority of boat users. And so describing them as 'composting' toilets in advertising material is reasonable.

But there is also an element of greenwashing going on. 'Composting' sounds so much nicer than the alternatives. And yes, I do think some of the manufacturers are turning a blind eye to the fact that a significant proportion of their customers have no intention of actually turning their waste into compost.

[Dr Bob]

5 minutes ago, IanD said:

CaRT aren't "shoving it under the rug and hoping it will go away", they're proposing to take action to stop people abusing the waste disposal system on the canals.

No they are not.

Damien has mentioned a 'should not'. That is not proposing to change what they have been proposing for the last 3 years.

Put your money where your mouth is. £50 that the practice of solid waste is not banned by the CRT in 12 months without an easy alternative put in its place?

[GUMPY]

I must be doing something wrong, having not eaten meat for 40 years my fecal matter is anything but solid.

If I bagged it it would be like Having a bag full of hummous.

 

36 minutes ago, Dr Bob said:

Most educated users see them as 'dry' toilets even if the manufacturers use the word composting.

What a load of cobblers that statement is. Complete twaddle

 

[Chagall]

1 minute ago, Loddon said:

I must be doing something wrong, having not eaten meat for 40 years my fecal matter is anything but solid.

If I bagged it it would be like Having a bag full of hummous.

 

Well didn't that just ruin my lunch plan! 

[doratheexplorer]

15 minutes ago, Loddon said:

I must be doing something wrong, having not eaten meat for 40 years my fecal matter is anything but solid.

If I bagged it it would be like Having a bag full of hummous.

 

 

 

You seem to be unaware of how these toilets work.  The whole point of them is that they dry out whatever goes into the main chamber.  It is not the same as crapping in a bucket, despite what you and others keep saying.

[GUMPY]

1 minute ago, doratheexplorer said:

You seem to be unaware of how these toilets work.  The whole point of them is that they dry out whatever goes into the main chamber.  It is not the same as crapping in a bucket, despite what you and others keep saying.

I am completely aware of how they work thank you, having considered one for the cottage where the results could be composted.

My point is that it would take months to dry out not days.

[doratheexplorer]

2 minutes ago, Loddon said:

I am completely aware of how they work thank you, having considered one for the cottage where the results could be composted.

My point is that it would take months to dry out not days.

Does that mean that all the people using them are lying?

[Arthur Marshall]

39 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

And those same people are currently abusing the facilities.  So no difference.

You have to assume that any logical solution to a problem involving waste is going to be abused, and factor that into your solution. It's no use imposing a system otherwise - check the trees for dog poo bags, or streets for litter. It's not just some people, it's most of us, at least some of the time. Even if CRT set up three compost bins at every station, plenty would use the wrong one, put noncompostable waste in if the bins were full, tip oil into them, or just dump the bags beside them. They'd be useless within a fortnight.

No doubt some holier-than-thou boater will tell me in a minute that they have never, ever, broken a single law or waterways guideline, but it won't be true.

[GUMPY]

2 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

Does that mean that all the people using them are lying?

I wouldn't call it lying, they may be believing an alternative version of the truth