What's Wrong With This Picture??

[markpj23]

Found this the hard way today. Anyone see what the issue is?

[ScottC]

Difficult to tell, without more context. The inlet should be at the "top" of the picture, yes? The two outlets with the swivel elbows...

[Todd R]

The white painted arrow is mis-leading, since this points to the blocked inlet. The two exposed black arrows show the actual flow of fluids (upper right to upper left)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxvPXowZywo

[markpj23]

Originally Posted by Todd R

The white painted arrow is mis-leading, since this points to the blocked inlet....

In fact, the white arrow painted on the handle is dead WRONG about the direction of flow. It's the black arrows cast into the valve body that are important.



We 'discovered' this through a long ugly story involving an overfull holding tank and smelly water in the bilge.



I guess I need to take the 'trust yet verify' approach to any markings made by the PO.... All those ElectroScan cycles for naught...

[Marco Flamingo]

My first thought was the problem was there is a handle. CG rules are that a three-way on the holding tank not have a handle attached, but stored somewhere inaccessible when at the valve. No?

[High Wire]

Originally Posted by Marco Flamingo

My first thought was the problem was there is a handle. CG rules are that a three-way on the holding tank not have a handle attached, but stored somewhere inaccessible when at the valve. No?

You can also lock it with a lock or wire tye. However the handle will need a minor modification for that like a hole to pass the tye.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by Marco Flamingo

My first thought was the problem was there is a handle. CG rules are that a three-way on the holding tank not have a handle attached, but stored somewhere inaccessible when at the valve. No?

No...it is one of several techniques to secure.

[markpj23]

These valves have an eye to pass a lockwire or cable tie through in either position. Not required unless in a NDZ.

[OldDan1943]

the tank handle reality escape logic.

[CaptTom]

I have to admit, those three-way valves always keep me guessing. The best you can do is mark it with whatever makes sense to you.

[koliver]

Originally Posted by CaptTom

I have to admit, those three-way valves always keep me guessing. The best you can do is mark it with whatever makes sense to you.

Then remove those markings before selling, as this is exactly what went wrong in this fine example.

[Comodave]

I solved that issue on my boat the other day. Cut the overboard discharge hose and capped it. Removed the macerator pump and now it isn’t an issue anymore. That isn’t why I removed it all but to get the space that the pump was taking up. We can’t pump overboard here anyway so why keep the pump and old hoses.

[catalinajack]

I used to have one of those three-way valves until it got clogged. Take a look at the guts. Even though I had a 1.5" hose, the internal passages in the three-way are much smaller, a chokepoint. Instead, I used 1.5" PVC with 1.5" full-flow valves. Simply. Lose one or the other. No muss, no fuss. Plus, a quick viewing of the valve handle position reveals the state of the discharge flow.as stated by others, a wire tie meets the regulation for securing the overboard side.

[psneeld]

Prefer these Forespar Marelon....mindlessly easy.

Pretty sure full flow too.

[ronobrien]

Originally Posted by markpj23

In fact, the white arrow painted on the handle is dead WRONG about the direction of flow. It's the black arrows cast into the valve body that are important.



We 'discovered' this through a long ugly story involving an overfull holding tank and smelly water in the bilge.



I guess I need to take the 'trust yet verify' approach to any markings made by the PO.... All those ElectroScan cycles for naught...

A buddy of mine bought a new to him Island Packet and we went through the same issue with the valve being labeled wrong. It was a nasty learning lesson.

[rgano]

Originally Posted by markpj23

These valves have an eye to pass a lockwire or cable tie through in either position. Not required unless in a NDZ.

Not so sure. We are not a NDZ here in our NWFL bays and GIWW, but it the positive means of locking the overboard valve is required inside the coastal three-mile limit. NDZs can have some very serious requirements. For instance, I think the hose to the overboard through hull must be removed in the NDZ of Lake Champlain.

[catalinajack]

Originally Posted by rgano

Not so sure. We are not a NDZ here in our NWFL bays and GIWW, but it the positive means of locking the overboard valve is required inside the coastal three-mile limit. NDZs can have some very serious requirements. For instance, I think the hose to the overboard through hull must be removed in the NDZ of Lake Champlain.

Rich, no, removing the hose in Lake Champlain is a fallacy allthough you will find tons of misinformation. It is a Federally-regulated waterway. As such, the valve just needs to be secured which includes a simple nylon wire tie.

[NEtrawler58]

Originally Posted by rgano

Not so sure. We are not a NDZ here in our NWFL bays and GIWW, but it the positive means of locking the overboard valve is required inside the coastal three-mile limit. NDZs can have some very serious requirements. For instance, I think the hose to the overboard through hull must be removed in the NDZ of Lake Champlain.

I believe you are correct about Lake Champlain, but not sure how many actually follow that law. Personally I would not want to permanently remove the overboard discharge capability. In a rare situation where I couldn't get a pumpout and had a full tank, I would risk breaking the overboard discharge law over damaging my holding tank or some other unpleasant result of trying to pump into a full tank. The world won't end from a couple gallons of black water.

[NEtrawler58]

I tend to trust Peggie when it comes to marine sanitization systems, not to open an old argument.....


Federal law (33 CFR 159.7) lists the acceptable ways of securing the sanitation system in "no discharge" waters" (note that the acceptable means of securing Type I and II MSDs (treatment devices) are not acceptable means of securing a holding tank (Type III).

(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.


All of the above is acceptable on all the Great Lakes in both US and Canadian waters...but NOT on Lake Champlain. NY state marine sanitation law for Champlain requires that there be no plumbing connected to any overboard discharge pump or thru-hull.



Logged
Peggie Hall
Specializing in marine sanitation since 1987

[markpj23]

Originally Posted by rgano

Not so sure. We are not a NDZ here in our NWFL bays and GIWW, but it the positive means of locking the overboard valve is required inside the coastal three-mile limit. NDZs can have some very serious requirements. For instance, I think the hose to the overboard through hull must be removed in the NDZ of Lake Champlain.

I guess I should have said, "not required for Type I MSD unless in a NDZ."