Locking the Head Overboard Valve

[peghall]

Federal law (33 CFR 159.7 (b) and (c) spells out in detail the acceptable methods of securing a system...Note that they do NOT include the need to disconnect ANY plumbing:

(b) When operating a vessel on a body of water where the discharge of treated or untreated sewage is prohibited by the Environmental Protection Agency under 40 CFR 140.3 or 140.4, the operator must secure each Type I or Type II device in a manner which prevents discharge of treated or untreated sewage. Acceptable methods of securing the device include—
(1) Closing the seacock and removing the handle;
(2) Padlocking the seacock in the closed position;
(3) Using a non-releasable wire-tie to hold the seacock in the closed position; or
(4) Locking the door to the space enclosing the toilets with a padlock or door handle key lock.


(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.


Do note that the requirements in (c) refer to each valve, not just y-valves...and seacocks are valves.


However, NY and ME state laws ONLY accepts disconnected plumbing on ALL vessels. It appears to me that ME law requires that only on non-navigable ("freshwater lakes, freshwater reservoirs or other freshwater impoundments whose inlets or outlets are such as to prevent the ingress or egress by vessel traffic subject to this regulation, or in rivers not capable of navigation by interstate vessel traffic") waters. The only argument is whether they can legally enforce THAT against transient vessels in coastal waters or on navigable interstate waterways.

States MAY enact stiffer requirements for vessels on non-navigable INTRAstate lakes that are entirely under state jurisdiction, and--arguably--they may require more of local residents on the portions of INTERstate waters within state boundares than they can legally require of transients. But Champlain and the coastal waters of Maine are navigable INTERstate waterways...and navigable interstate waters are under federal jurisdiction, and federal law (CFR TITLE 46, Subtitle II, Part B, CHAPTER 43, section 4306) sayeth:

"Unless permitted by the Secretary under section 4305 of this title, a
State or political subdivision of a State may not establish, continue in
effect, or enforce a law or regulation establishing a recreational
vessel or associated equipment performance or other safety standard or
imposing a requirement for associated equipment...that is not identical
to a regulation prescribed under section 4302 of this title."

That makes it pretty clear that federal law trumps state law.

However, as someone else has previously noted, anything is enforceable
until it's successfully challenged in court. Trouble is, there hasn't been a transient boat owner so far who's been willing to subject himself to that hassle and expense. Otoh, I've yet to hear of any transient vessel that's ever been boarded and inspected, much less cited...so it may be a moot issue.

[Watercolor]

Just a quick note, I won't have a chance to respond fully until tomorrow.

1. I've been working with a few AGLCA members regarding the need to meet the Lake Champlain and Great Lakes discharge regulations so I've lumped the Great Lakes (US and Canada) into one basket. Most of these people travel back and forth between US and Canada.

I Apologize for lumping the US and CDN sides of the Great Lakes together.

2. I don't believe there are any disconnect requirements on the US side of the Great Lakes.

3. Yes, there are regulations on the Canadian side, similar to those on Lake Champlain, total disconnection. When I waas researching the issue some 7 years ago, I contacted Transport Canada and sent them a TURNCOUPLE to see if it met the requirements. I t did.

4. I'll have a chance to find my computer file with the appropriate reference by tomorrow.

5. If you're in a hurry, the water is still a bit frosty, you might be able to contact Michael Dua at Transport Canada. He was my contact in 2004 and is still there.

Again fair winds,

jed

[capn_billl]

Originally Posted by Don Lucas

The question of whether the macerator discharge valves require to be locked is the main question.

YES! the last time I was boarded by the USCG they required me to close the macerator seacock, and would not leave the boat until I placed a zip tie on the handle. There was no place to attach the zip tie so I tied it at an angle to the body of the valve. (Even though it was obvious the zip tie would not stop someone from opening the valve if they pulled hard enough, they were satisfied with that).

Subsequent boardings they just glanced at the zip tie and made no further comment.

.

[gettinthere]

Peggy

Are you interpreting the "each valve" must be locked or have you heard that directly from USCG? To me the wording is a bit vague. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it could be read differently. If an upstream valve is closed, the downstream valve would not lead to a discharge.

The reason I am concerned is that I have an overboard discharge seacock that is the old style groco with the rubber insert. There seems to be no way to lock it closed. Hate to go to the time, effort & expense to change it if I don't have to.

[cal40john]

The CFRs posted use the word "include" in the methods of locking valves. That means other means could be used, though when boarded I would assume that those doing the enforcing would not be expected to figure out and then allow a more creative approach that you have devised.

I too wonder if each valve means every valve in the exit line of a single head/msd, or if it means each as in for each head on the boat.

My head is plumbed directly to the holding tank. The pumpout tees to the shore pump out and to a manual diaphragm pump that goes out through a through hull. I haven't been stopped for an inspection yet, and expect that they will tell me to put a zip tie on the seacock, but I'm going to try to explain that the pump which has a removeable handle, and which is not left on the pump stored away has disabled the waste overboard functionality and so meets code of preventing discharge.

Again I fully expect that the suggested methods in the CFR are going to be treated as the only acceptable means and that I will lose.

John

[peghall]

Originally Posted by gettinthere

Peggy Are you interpreting the "each valve" must be locked or have you heard that directly from USCG? To me the wording is a bit vague. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that it could be read differently.

I'm not the one you need to argue the point with. I'm just the messenger and yes, I have heard it directly from USCG. However, another inspector could take different view.

99% of the time, the CG will accept just about anything that indicates intent to comply. It's only the local water cop with an advanced case of Barney Fife syndrome that you have to worry about. Problem is, you never know when you're gonna run into one.

[peghall]

John, removing the handle from a y-valve or seacock IS one of the acceptable means listed in the CFR...so I can't understand what your problem is.

One thing to note...(b) only lists the acceptable means of securing a Type I or II treatment device...it's (c) that lists the acceptable means of securing a toilet that can flush directly overboard or a tank.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by peghall

............... the local water cop with an advanced case of Barney Fife syndrome that you have to worry about. .

this is the guy I was thinking of when I posted this because once Barney pulls you over he is determined to give give you a ticket for something.

[cal40john]

Originally Posted by peghall

John, removing the handle from a y-valve or seacock IS one of the acceptable means listed in the CFR...so I can't understand what your problem is.

One thing to note...(b) only lists the acceptable means of securing a Type I or II treatment device...it's (c) that lists the acceptable means of securing a toilet that can flush directly overboard or a tank.

I don't have a y-valve. I have a diaphragm pump with a removeable handle. I'm claiming that the disabled pump prevents pumping overboard.

John

[gettinthere]

so how do I "lock" the old style groco seacock?

[peghall]

Originally Posted by cal40john

I don't have a y-valve. I have a diaphragm pump with a removeable handle. I'm claiming that the disabled pump prevents pumping overboard. John

"...removing the handle from a y-valve or seacock..."

Or a pump...<sigh>...

[Watercolor]

@font-face { font-family: "Arial"; }@font-face { font-family: "Times"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } It looks like Teneicm and Capt. Bill answered the critical issue regarding Don’s plumbing dilemma. I didn’t think that Maine had a thru-hull disconnect regulation on the coast. However, if Maine’s were like the Lake Champlain or Great Lakes (Canadian side) regs Don would need to be able to disconnect all three thru-hulls. It wouldn’t matter where in the line, tank, y-valve, macerator or seacock. It has to be completely disconnected.

Again I apologize for lumping the Canadian discharge regs together with the US regs on the Great lakes. As I said, I’ve been working with quite a few AGLCA members regarding the disconnection issue and they’ll be traveling on both sides of the Great Lakes so the more restrictive regs control. As several mentioned, there are NO disconnection regulations on the US side of the Great Lakes. To the best of my knowledge, Lake Champlain is the only accessible U.S. lake that has a disconnection rule.

Here’s the reference that GETTINTHERE requested, the regulation, I believe goes back to 2001, so you were illegal for only 10 of your 20 Great Lakes boating years.

Visitor Information - Transport Canada

On the Canadian side of the Great Lakes ALL Pleasure Craft are required to have their head systems completely disconnected from their thru-hulls. The regulation does not specify where the disconnection need occur. It reads as follows,

“There are restrictions against pumping sewage into all waters with the province of Ontario and some interior lakes of British Columbia and Manitoba. In these areas, a pleasure craft fitted with a toilet must also be fitted with a holding tank and if fitted with a piping system that allows the discharge of sewage directly overboard, then this discharge must be visibly disconnected. Sewage may only be discharged at shore pump-out facilities.”



Please note the reference to the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. The Canadian side of the Great Lakes is, it appears. all within the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. As I mentioned this was all verified by Michael Dua of Transport Canada in 2004 as part of our project.



Peggy Hall mentioned that she had “not heard of any transient vessel that's ever been boarded and inspected, much less cited” on either Lake Champlain or the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. I live in Vermont, have done a lot of sailing on Champlain, and can guarantee the regulation is enforced. Enforcement is strict, but the marine patrol is lenient the first time. They’ll give you a warning, but require you to disconnect the system, usually at a marina, before traveling on. I don’t know of anyone getting a fine for the first infraction, but I have heard of boaters being fined. Regarding the Canadian Great Lakes, several cruisers doing the Great Loop have said that they or friends have been boarded and their head systems checked. Like Lake Champlain, the patrol is lenient, but the head system must be disconnected before moving on. We have a lot of Canadians sailing on Champlain and I’ve heard them talk of fines being levied, but I can’t verify that.


While Peggy Hall may be correct as to a basic interpretation of the Federal law, it’s very possible that the Lake Champlain and/or Great Lakes may come under different regulations or there are conflicting regulations. In ten years the law (Canadian, NY, or VT), to my knowledge, has never been challenged. Lake Champlain may well be a permitted site. I live in VT and many communities get their drinking water from the lake; that alone may be a rule changer.



My wife and I live in VT and have cruised the East Coast, Bermuda and the Bahamas for years. We’ve been off the lake 4 times and disconnecting and reconnecting our head system is, at best, a 15 minute affair, on either of the cruising boats we’ve owned. On the lake, there are pumpouts everywhere, pumping out was never a problem. We’ve always tried to be respectful of other people’s homes (communities) on and off the lake, it’s not always been easy, especially down south. We always tried to pump overboard while we were off shore, just before landfall.



When it comes to pollution issues, cruisers are a very minor part of the problem, however we are a very visible scapegoat. We’re also aware of how easy it is to stick a handle back on a seacock, unlock a lock, clip a wire tie or replace a removable pump handle and pump overboard. It’s sort of a joke. The vast majority of cruisers try hard to follow the law. But, a significant number don’t. Overboard discharge is a major, but overblown, issue brought up by anti-anchoring groups as we’ve seen in Florida. I’d put my energy in making sure cruisers continue to have solid anchoring rights. I’d be happy to disconnect my head thru-hull when I came into port, as long as I wouldn’t be harassed in my choice of anchorages. It’s just not the fight I’d pick.

[Watercolor]

@font-face { font-family: "Arial"; }@font-face { font-family: "Times"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; } It looks like Teneicm and Capt. Bill answered the critical issue regarding Don’s plumbing dilemma. I didn’t think that Maine had a thru-hull disconnect regulation on the coast. However, if Maine’s were like the Lake Champlain or Great Lakes (Canadian side) regs Don would need to be able to disconnect all three thru-hulls. It wouldn’t matter where in the line, tank, y-valve, macerator or seacock. It has to be completely disconnected.

Again I apologize for lumping the Canadian discharge regs together with the US regs on the Great lakes. As I said, I’ve been working with quite a few AGLCA members regarding the disconnection issue and they’ll be traveling on both sides of the Great Lakes so the more restrictive regs control. As several mentioned, there are NO disconnection regulations on the US side of the Great Lakes. To the best of my knowledge, Lake Champlain is the only accessible U.S. lake that has a disconnection rule.

Here’s the reference that GETTINTHERE requested, the regulation, I believe goes back to 2001, so you were illegal for only 10 of your 20 Great Lakes boating years.

Visitor Information - Transport Canada

On the Canadian side of the Great Lakes ALL Pleasure Craft are required to have their head systems completely disconnected from their thru-hulls. The regulation does not specify where the disconnection need occur. It reads as follows,

“There are restrictions against pumping sewage into all waters with the province of Ontario and some interior lakes of British Columbia and Manitoba. In these areas, a pleasure craft fitted with a toilet must also be fitted with a holding tank and if fitted with a piping system that allows the discharge of sewage directly overboard, then this discharge must be visibly disconnected. Sewage may only be discharged at shore pump-out facilities.”



Please note the reference to the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. The Canadian side of the Great Lakes is, it appears. all within the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. As I mentioned this was all verified by Michael Dua of Transport Canada in 2004 as part of our project.



Peggy Hall mentioned that she had “not heard of any transient vessel that's ever been boarded and inspected, much less cited” on either Lake Champlain or the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. I live in Vermont, have done a lot of sailing on Champlain, and can guarantee the regulation is enforced. Enforcement is strict, but the marine patrol is lenient the first time. They’ll give you a warning, but require you to disconnect the system, usually at a marina, before traveling on. I don’t know of anyone getting a fine for the first infraction, but I have heard of boaters being fined. Regarding the Canadian Great Lakes, several cruisers doing the Great Loop have said that they or friends have been boarded and their head systems checked. Like Lake Champlain, the patrol is lenient, but the head system must be disconnected before moving on. We have a lot of Canadians sailing on Champlain and I’ve heard them talk of fines being levied, but I can’t verify that.


While Peggy may possibly be correct as to a basic interpretation of the Federal law, it’s equally possible that Lake Champlain and/or Great Lakes may come under different regulations or there conflicting regulations. In ten years the law (Canadian, NY, or VT), to my knowledge, has never been challenged. Lake Champlain may well be a permitted site. I live in VT and many communities get their drinking water from the lake; that alone may be a rule changer.


My wife and I live in VT and have cruised the East Coast, Bermuda and the Bahamas for years. We’ve been off the lake 4 times and disconnecting and reconnecting our head system is, at best, a 15 minute affair, on either of the cruising boats we’ve owned. On the lake, there are pump-outs everywhere, pumping out was never a problem. We’ve always tried to be respectful of other people’s homes (communities) on and off the lake, it’s not always been easy, especially down south. We always tried to pump overboard while we were off shore, just before landfall.



When it comes to pollution issues, cruisers are a very minor part of the problem, however we are a very visible scapegoat. We’re also aware of how easy it is to stick a handle back on a seacock, unlock a lock, clip a wire tie or replace a removable pump handle and pump overboard. It’s sort of a joke. The vast majority of cruisers try hard to follow the law. But, a significant number don’t. Overboard discharge is a major, but overblown, issue brought up by anti-anchoring groups as we’ve seen in Florida. I’d put my energy in making sure cruisers continue to have solid anchoring rights. I’d be happy to disconnect my head thru-hull when I came into port, as long as I wouldn’t be harassed in my choice of anchorages. It’s just not the fight I’d pick.

@font-face { font-family: "Arial"; }@font-face { font-family: "Times"; }@font-face { font-family: "Cambria"; }p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in 0in 0.0001pt; font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Times New Roman"; }a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: blue; text-decoration: underline; }a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed { color: purple; text-decoration: underline; }div.Section1 { page: Section1; }

[Watercolor]

I've been having some trouble with control characters showing up in my documents. Hope this works.

It looks like Teneicm and Capt. Bill answered the critical issue regarding Don’s plumbing dilemma. I didn’t think that Maine had a thru-hull disconnect regulation on the coast. However, if Maine’s were like the Lake Champlain or Great Lakes (Canadian side) regs Don would need to be able to disconnect all three thru-hulls. It wouldn’t matter where in the line, tank, y-valve, macerator or seacock. It has to be completely disconnected.

Again I apologize for lumping the Canadian discharge regs together with the US regs on the Great lakes. As I said, I’ve been working with quite a few AGLCA members regarding the disconnection issue and they’ll be traveling on both sides of the Great Lakes so the more restrictive regs control. As several mentioned, there are NO disconnection regulations on the US side of the Great Lakes. To the best of my knowledge, Lake Champlain is the only accessible U.S. lake that has a disconnection rule.

Here’s the reference that GETTINTHERE requested, the regulation, I believe goes back to 2001, so you were illegal for only 10 of your 20 Great Lakes boating years. Visitor Information - Transport Canada

On the Canadian side of the Great Lakes ALL Pleasure Craft are required to have their head systems completely disconnected from their thru-hulls. The regulation does not specify where the disconnection need occur. It reads as follows,

“There are restrictions against pumping sewage into all waters with the province of Ontario and some interior lakes of British Columbia and Manitoba. In these areas, a pleasure craft fitted with a toilet must also be fitted with a holding tank and if fitted with a piping system that allows the discharge of sewage directly overboard, then this discharge must be visibly disconnected. Sewage may only be discharged at shore pump-out facilities.”

Please note the reference to the PROVINCE OF ONTARIO. The Canadian side of the Great Lakes is, it appears. all within the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. As I mentioned this was all verified by Michael Dua of Transport Canada in 2004 as part of our project.

Peggy Hall mentioned that she had “not heard of any transient vessel that's ever been boarded and inspected, much less cited” on either Lake Champlain or the Canadian side of the Great Lakes. I live in Vermont, have done a lot of sailing on Champlain, and can guarantee the regulation is enforced. Enforcement is strict, but the marine patrol is lenient the first time. They’ll give you a warning, but require you to disconnect the system, usually at a marina, before traveling on. I don’t know of anyone getting a fine for the first infraction, but I have heard of boaters being fined.

Regarding the Canadian Great Lakes, several cruisers doing the Great Loop have said that they or friends have been boarded and their head systems checked. Like Lake Champlain, the patrol is lenient, but the head system must be disconnected before moving on. We have a lot of Canadians sailing on Champlain and I’ve heard them talk of fines being levied, but I can’t verify that.

While Peggy Hall may be correct as to a basic interpretation of the Federal law, it’s very possible that the Lake Champlain and/or Great Lakes may come under different regulations or there are conflicting regulations. In ten years the law (Canadian, NY, or VT), to my knowledge, has never been challenged. Lake Champlain may well be a permitted site. I live in VT and many communities get their drinking water from the lake; that alone may be a rule changer.

My wife and I live in VT and have cruised the East Coast, Bermuda and the Bahamas for years. We’ve been off the lake 4 times and disconnecting and reconnecting our head system is, at best, a 15 minute affair, on either of the cruising boats we’ve owned. On the lake, there are pumpouts everywhere, pumping out was never a problem. We’ve always tried to be respectful of other people’s homes (communities) on and off the lake, it’s not always been easy, especially down south. We always tried to pump overboard while we were off shore, just before landfall.

When it comes to pollution issues, cruisers are a very minor part of the problem, however we are a very visible scapegoat. We’re also aware of how easy it is to stick a handle back on a seacock, unlock a lock, clip a wire tie or replace a removable pump handle and pump overboard. It’s sort of a joke. The vast majority of cruisers try hard to follow the law. But, a significant number don’t. Overboard discharge is a major, but overblown, issue brought up by anti-anchoring groups as we’ve seen in Florida. I’d put my energy in making sure cruisers continue to have solid anchoring rights. I’d be happy to disconnect my head thru-hull when I came into port, as long as I wouldn’t be harassed in my choice of anchorages. It’s just not the fight I’d pick.