Cruisers Forum
 


Join CruisersForum Today

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 10-11-2014, 10:59   #16
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: So Cal
Boat: Catalina 30
Posts: 943
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

I'm in the camp that eliminated the Y valve. It made sense for my situation (a non-bluewater boat) because:

1. On a daysail, we'll macerate when past 3 miles on the way back in.
2. On a trip to the channel islands, do the same - most of the usage is not during the passage anyway.
3. Pump out stations are plentiful around here when the macerator breaks.
4. The poo police are happy when they ask to see my Y valve (To insure it's locked or whatever) and I say that I don't have one.

Add to it that one of the PO's of the boat had hooked up the Y valve incorrectly, I just removed it.
__________________

__________________
jeepbluetj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 11:21   #17
Senior Cruiser
 
Cheechako's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Skagit City, WA
Posts: 19,365
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Last I heard you can discharge overboard in BC. (?) Keep the option. If you go many places in BC, (which is the greatest cruising ground vs US) there are no pumpouts available. Why would you not keep the option?
__________________

__________________
"I spent most of my money on Booze, Broads and Boats. The rest I wasted" - Elmore Leonard











Cheechako is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 11:38   #18
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

How does one install a Y Valve incorrectly?

The PO on my boat de-commissioned the holding tank completely and installed a lectrasan. I just recommissioned the holding tank and put in a Y valve. The Lectrasan discharges either overboard or into the holding tank for later pump out. Not the way I would have done it myself because the Lectrasan is extra space and maintenance but seems to be the best solution since a Y Valve is going to be required in the PNW as of 12/31.
__________________
ntscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 11:48   #19
cruiser

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Charleston, SC
Boat: Camano Troll
Posts: 4,669
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Jackson View Post
I could never understand the logic of pumping everything into the HT if it's going overboard anyway.
I will try to explain it.

You may need to use the head while in an area where you cannot discharge sewage overboard. Several times even. Once you get to a place where you can legally discharge sewage overboard, just hit the switch to the macerator pump and it gets chopped up and discharged. Or have it pumped out if you don't go to where you can legally dump it.
__________________
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 11:50   #20
cruiser

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Charleston, SC
Boat: Camano Troll
Posts: 4,669
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Jackson View Post
And when, not if, your macerator pump dies...like mine did last year, you wish you'd kept the Y valve.
See the current thread about carrying spare parts aboard. And remember, if it's an emergency, a bucket can be pressed into service.
__________________
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 14:17   #21
Registered User
 
Cadence's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SC
Boat: None,build the one shown of glass, had many from 6' to 48'.
Posts: 6,063
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by sv JoyRide View Post
Hi Fellow Cruisers,

I've got a question for those of you that primarily cruise the Pacific Northwest.

It's come time to replace the aft head hoses on our boat. The PO had replaced the forward head hoses before we purchased it, and removed the Y-valve and the direct discharge hose entirely. (Which makes sense. It's pretty much illegal to dump anywhere we normally cruise - I'm not sure about the northern parts of Canada, but it's unlikely we'd ever take it that far.)

The question is: Is there any benefit or reason for keeping the aft head Y-valve and direct discharge hose? I'd thought it might be a negative as far as eventually resale - but in talking with others - some makes of our boat weren't even built with the direct discharge. (And as a side note - we also have a macerator on each tank - although I don't know if they work).

If I don't need to run yet another length of hose - that will save me some time and $$$.
Thanks,
A couple of feet of hose? I'd keep all of my discharge options open. It may pay come resale time even if you don't go off shore enough to dicharge?
__________________
Cadence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 14:49   #22
Registered User

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: So Cal
Boat: Catalina 30
Posts: 943
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntscout View Post
How does one install a Y Valve incorrectly?
Put the "bottom" of the Y on the hose to the tank. The valve could connect the toilet to the tank, or the tank to the thru-hull. And no, it was not a gravity empty, it was more of a way to fill the tank with salt water.

There was no way to pump the toilet out the thruhull.

I've found all kinds of wondrous 'repairs' on my boat.
__________________
jeepbluetj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 20:51   #23
Marine Service Provider

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Victoria B.C.
Boat: CS27
Posts: 1,743
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntscout View Post
....... since a Y Valve is going to be required in the PNW as of 12/31.
Where did you read that?
__________________
mitiempo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2014, 22:04   #24
Senior Cruiser
 
roverhi's Avatar

Cruisers Forum Supporter

Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Kona, Hawaii, Carlsbad, CA
Boat: 1969 Pearson 35 #108 & 1976 Sabre 28
Posts: 6,005
Send a message via Yahoo to roverhi
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

The Eco Nazi's are in the process of making Puget Sound into a no discharge zone. It is obvious that they have made their mind up and are just going through the motions of asking for public input. Did not know that they had a date to put the NDZ into effect but it's coming. They have already put in a ban on copper anti-fouling paint without a viable replacement, the NDZ is next. Just another gift from a government bureaucracy and self serving politicians to justify the tremendous money they waste.
__________________
Peter O.
'Ae'a Pearson 35
roverhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2014, 08:31   #25
cruiser

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Charleston, SC
Boat: Camano Troll
Posts: 4,669
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
....... since a Y Valve is going to be required in the PNW as of 12/31.
You do not need a Y valve, just a way to prevent accidental discharge of sewage. A lockable Y valve is one such way. My boat has no Y valve, the head discharges into the holding tank. The tank can be emptied by a pumpout station or overboard by a macerator pump. I replaced the original switch with a key operated switch and keep the key hidden. No accidental discharge.
__________________
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2014, 08:40   #26
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepbluetj View Post
Put the "bottom" of the Y on the hose to the tank. The valve could connect the toilet to the tank, or the tank to the thru-hull. And no, it was not a gravity empty, it was more of a way to fill the tank with salt water.

There was no way to pump the toilet out the thruhull.

I've found all kinds of wondrous 'repairs' on my boat.
Wow, that took some doing. I would never have figured that one. Did the PO never realize that it was installed like that I wonder?
__________________
ntscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2014, 08:41   #27
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mitiempo View Post
Where did you read that?
Sorry I mis-typed, I meant Puget Sound going all no discharge as of 12/31. I assumed most would put in Y valve but obviously not required as long as there is a way to prevent discharge.
__________________
ntscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2014, 08:43   #28
Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 30
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwidman View Post
You do not need a Y valve, just a way to prevent accidental discharge of sewage. A lockable Y valve is one such way. My boat has no Y valve, the head discharges into the holding tank. The tank can be emptied by a pumpout station or overboard by a macerator pump. I replaced the original switch with a key operated switch and keep the key hidden. No accidental discharge.
Does that pass a Coast Guard inspection? I thought you had one had to have the ability to close and lock the thru hull valve.
__________________
ntscout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2014, 09:01   #29
Registered User
 
MYTraveler's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 166
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Perhaps the confusion is mine, but as I understand your question, you are not proposing to eliminate your ability to pump the holding tank overboard. Instead, you are proposing that everything go into holding tank and from there you can either pump at a station or overboard. Your question is limited to the benefit of keeping the y-valve that directs to head either straight overboard or into the holding tank. If I have that right, the thinking that went into my boat may be of use. First though, it should be noted that my boat was set up with redundancy of all mission critical systems, and simplicity, with the thought that the boat should be able to travel anywhere, suffer system failures along the way, have enough redundancy to keep going if if a critical system fails, then get it fixed in even remote ports.
With regard to the head system, there are 4 heads divided into two completely redundant systems (ie, 2 holding tanks, two pump outs, etc.). Each head has a y-valve allowing it to dump straight overboard. That could be useful in the event that it becomes impossible to pump out the holding tank. Although I have never needed to use that feature, it is potentially very useful.
__________________
MYTraveler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2014, 09:26   #30
cruiser

Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: North Charleston, SC
Boat: Camano Troll
Posts: 4,669
Re: Any reason to maintain direct discharge in the PNW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by ntscout View Post
Does that pass a Coast Guard inspection? I thought you had one had to have the ability to close and lock the thru hull valve.
I have no thru hull valve. The boat was manufactured without one (the discharge is above the waterline).

I was boarded by the USCG a few months ago but they did not inspect my waste system. The actual regulations don't require a Y valve, just an effective way of preventing overboard discharge. If push comes to shove I'll contest it.

Here is the regulation (for the USA):

Quote:
(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. (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.

(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.
Notice the phrase " Acceptable methods of securing the device include— " The regulation does not exclude other methods. Also, as I mentioned, I have no valve so none of the suggested methods apply to my boat.
__________________

__________________
rwidman is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any Reason Not to.... Delancey Construction, Maintenance & Refit 9 13-04-2013 22:48
Direct Discharge Head waverider General Sailing Forum 129 27-12-2008 11:49
cost no object... neither to buy or maintain - what mono would you have any why? Sterling Monohull Sailboats 36 25-10-2008 08:19



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:42.


Google+
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Social Knowledge Networks
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

ShowCase vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.