"Y" Valves and locks

[Maine_bill]

I've seen pictures of Y Valves being locked to the holding tank pisition with an actual padlock. Is a padlock required by LAW or can it be "secured" using say, a bolt and nut or nylon wrap ties. Seems to me all would be OK as they ALL can be unsecured/re-rescured very easily.
I only ask in that the location of my Y Valve would make it impossible to use a bolt cutter to cut a padlock off if I lose the key?
Thoughts?..
Thanks
Bill

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Maine_bill

I've seen pictures of Y Valves being locked to the holding tank pisition with an actual padlock. Is a padlock required by LAW or can it be "secured" using say, a bolt and nut or nylon wrap ties. Seems to me all would be OK as they ALL can be unsecured/re-rescured very easily.
I only ask in that the location of my Y Valve would make it impossible to use a bolt cutter to cut a padlock off if I lose the key?
Thoughts?..
Thanks
Bill

"non-removable Wire ties" are deemed acceptable by the USCG. These are the CG description for what the rest of us call nylon cable ties. This description comes from the MIL Spec description of a nylon cable tie, and since the the USCG is a quasi military organization they use that description. There is such a thing as a "removable wire tie" which has a small tab on it that can be used to unlock the cable tie without cutting it. I saw these while working for a defense contractor many years ago, but have never seen one in the civilian market. The only problem you might have is occasionally one runs into a local LEO that has no idea that a "non-removable wire tie" is the same thing as a nylon cable tie. They seem to think that since the spec has the word wire in it that it must have a wire somewhere, which of course a cable tie does not have. I heard of a guy a few years ago that got a ticket in FL for having one secured with a cable tie. I don't know if he fought the ticket or not. From the description of what the LEO wanted to see he described a "Wire Seal" as opposed to a wire tie. A wire seal has a wire with a lead crimp at one end and the wire is routed through the thing to be secured and back through the crimp which is then compressed to lock it in place. The CG regulations require a wire tie not a wire seal. I include this information just in case you need to explain the difference to an untrained LEO or a judge.

One other thing to remember is that in Florida having the valve closed but not secured is only supposed to be a $50 fine, while having it open is a $250 fine. I have never heard of a LEO writing up the $50 charge even when it was all that was appropriate. They always write up the $250 charge. I guess they figure that most people will just pay the fine and move on rather than fight it in court. It's the waterway equivalent of the old GA speed trap and a real money maker for the local government.

[peghall]

Unless you're unlucky enough to be inspected by a local, state or (VERY rarely) USCG law enforcement person with an advanced case of "Barney Fife syndrome, anything you use to "secure" the system that obviously demonstrates intent to comply will be accepted. You'll find all the acceptable methods for securing both Type I and II (treatment) systems and Type III (holding tank systems) in 33 CFR 159.7 "Requirements for Vessel Operators" which you can read here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/159.7

[CaptTom]

This regulation lists examples of what's acceptable, but they're sometimes interpreted as the ONLY options.

My last boat had two switches hidden under the helm which had to be pressed at the same time to work the macerator. I never knew if the manufacturer had deemed that to meet the requirement or not.

And what about adding a key switch in the macerator circuit? Seems to me that would lock it out of service as effectively as locking the door to the head (an "acceptable" method per the CFR.)

Back to the Lake Champlain question, I wonder if removing the handle of the through-hull will be acceptable to NY and VT?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by peghall

Unless you're unlucky enough to be inspected by a local, state or (VERY rarely) USCG law enforcement person with an advanced case of "Barney Fife syndrome, anything you use to "secure" the system that obviously demonstrates intent to comply will be accepted. You'll find all the acceptable methods for securing both Type I and II (treatment) systems and Type III (holding tank systems) in 33 CFR 159.7 "Requirements for Vessel Operators" which you can read here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/159.7

In Florida, at least, they are VERY particular about doing it to the letter. They are not friendly and not lenient. I'm here to tell you . . . They are as efficient and ruthless as any storm troopers ever were.

Is it "Barnie Fife" syndrome? Maybe -- but in that case, it's universal down there.

After half a dozen fines, and in the last case despite cable ties (our arguments that this is supposed to be acceptable fell on deaf ears -- "You can fight it in court if you like; have a nice day"), we finally installed a Lectra San and permanently isolated and closed the direct discharge. Note that we were never caught with the valve open -- just "not properly secured"; once there was even a padlock on it but the key was in my pocket, which I stupidly admitted . . .


That brought relief from the dreaded Potty Police, and they didn't notice or care during the couple of years the device was not working . . .

[Tayana42]

Originally Posted by peghall

Unless you're unlucky enough to be inspected by a local, state or (VERY rarely) USCG law enforcement person with an advanced case of "Barney Fife syndrome, anything you use to "secure" the system that obviously demonstrates intent to comply will be accepted. You'll find all the acceptable methods for securing both Type I and II (treatment) systems and Type III (holding tank systems) in 33 CFR 159.7 "Requirements for Vessel Operators" which you can read here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/33/159.7

Just curious since I don't have this problem where I sail. In my case I have no Y valve, just straight to the holding tank, but I do have a manual pump for overboard discharge of the tank to a below waterline through hull. Would that be a problem in the places being discussed? If so what would be required to secure the discharge pump or seacock?


S/V B'Shert

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Just curious since I don't have this problem where I sail. In my case I have no Y valve, just straight to the holding tank, but I do have a manual pump for overboard discharge of the tank to a below waterline through hull. Would that be a problem in the places being discussed? If so what would be required to secure the discharge pump or seacock?


S/V B'Shert

Little known even by Great Lakes boaters on Lake Ontario ..... The Ontario Water Resources Act provides for fines up to $50,000 and vessel seizure for discharge of certain materials including fuel, oil, dangerous chemicals and sewage. The Environmental Act, Ontario Regulation 343 states “ Water outlets for the head and/or holding tank must have no physical connection to an overboard discharge valve.

[peghall]

The Environmental Act, Ontario Regulation 343 states “ Water outlets for the head and/or holding tank must have no physical connection to an overboard discharge valve.

Do you have a link to that act, Poker? I'd like to add it to my files.

[sparrowhawk1]

Originally Posted by Tayana42

Just curious since I don't have this problem where I sail. In my case I have no Y valve, just straight to the holding tank, but I do have a manual pump for overboard discharge of the tank to a below waterline through hull. Would that be a problem in the places being discussed? If so what would be required to secure the discharge pump or seacock? My advice is to figure out a way to lock your seacock closed..


S/V B'Shert

For years I worked on a cattlemaran, I mean catamaran that took tourists out and we would just remove the handle from the manual pump and that was deemed legal. So I did the same thing with a Y valve that had a removable handle. it was in the holding tank position and I was boarded for a "safety inspection" and given an $80 fine. If I fought it I probably would have won but sometimes you can't stick around.

[GordMay]

Ontario Environmental Protection Act
R.R.O. 1990, REGULATION 343
DISCHARGE OF SEWAGE FROM PLEASURE BOATS

➥ https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900343

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by sparrowhawk1

For years I worked on a cattlemaran, I mean catamaran that took tourists out and we would just remove the handle from the manual pump and that was deemed legal. So I did the same thing with a Y valve that had a removable handle. it was in the holding tank position and I was boarded for a "safety inspection" and given an $80 fine. If I fought it I probably would have won but sometimes you can't stick around.

Just the Y valve? Or also the discharge seacock?

The examples in the rules mention the discharge seacock. You would have to be pretty literal minded, to say that you didn't accomplish the same thing in almost exactly the manner provided in the example, but I wouldn't be surprised. My experiences were the same. They were out to write tickets no matter what, and they didn't seem to care much whether there was any justice in it, probably because they counted on few people taking the trouble to appear in court. Following the "rules of engagement" with LEOs (always deferential, respectful, cooperative demeanor etc.) never worked for us, with these particular guys, and my Dad was a Coast Guard auxiliary, and even that carried no water! Very unpleasant, and one reason why I don't much miss cruising in Florida. You just never knew, when there might be some kind of a hassle. It seems to me that there is something almost even perverted, about this obsession with toilet waste.


I highly recommend the Lectra San, to anyone cruising in these waters -- it not only relieves you from all the pumping out, it eliminates questions from the Potty Police. That's because they just can't accuse you of anything they can even make a case about, much less prove, without analyzing the technical condition of the device, which they are not equipped to do (and not interested in). I guess a composting or incinerating toilet would have a similar effect.

[hpeer]

Originally Posted by peghall

The Environmental Act, Ontario Regulation 343 states “ Water outlets for the head and/or holding tank must have no physical connection to an overboard discharge valve.

Do you have a link to that act, Poker? I'd like to add it to my files.

It strikes me that regulation would prohibit the majority of boats afloat.

I presume it is not actively enforced?

What do Great Lakes locals have to say?

[pcmm]

Originally Posted by hpeer

It strikes me that regulation would prohibit the majority of boats afloat.

I presume it is not actively enforced?

What do Great Lakes locals have to say?

Most great lakes boats (I'm Lake Ontario) just aren't plumbed with Y valves or overboard discharge. Head just connects straight to the holding tank and the holding tank is emptied via a Deck fitting. there's been no other way for 40 years! pump outs are everywhere. I haven't run into a marina that didn't have the ability to empty a holding tank.

[hpeer]

Interesting. Our small boat was built in the lakes 30 years ago. Toilet to holding tank, as you say, but then to a Y valve for pump out or discharge.

There a lot of "loopers" going through the lakes and they mostly will have provisions for direct discharge, I think?

I ask because I'll be going up the Erie Canal and down the St Lawrence this summer.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by hpeer

It strikes me that regulation would prohibit the majority of boats afloat.

I presume it is not actively enforced?

What do Great Lakes locals have to say?

No it's not actively enforced. I've never known anyone to be charged however it is the law and if you get snotty with a LEO .......