Raritan Purasan EX

Does anyone have a Purasan EX system? I've had the original model with the chemical gravity feed setup for years on my cat and am well aware of the issues with clogging, etc. I'm about to install a Purasan in my trawler and I'm looking for feedback about the newer EX system with the forced chemical feed. I'd like a trouble-free system but before I drop $1,500 I want to make sure it works. An older gravity feed Purasan came with the trawler so I already have that. Note: The conversion kit to make it an EX unit cost about the same as a new Purasan EX!

good question.
I have the new EX, but it's not 100% installed.
Why? Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

I'll finish this April.

The PuraSan EX chemical delivery system no longer has the problems that plague the older version. I've not heard of a single complaint from anyone who's installed one.

Peggy, I'm going to put you right on the spot here.

First, I have a pal with a macerator that has been chewing away, nonstop since 1990 and he says he would have nothing else because of its simplicity.

So, Peggy, considering 90% on the hook time, if you were looking at a boat or wanting a new system what would your 1-2-3 system choices be?

Just to add a little perspective...

I went a different route on our boat with fresh water vacuflush heads.

I went with the electro-scan with a salt feed tank. It works fantastic and at least for me in Alaska it solved the hazmat issue we have with the purasan chemicals.

My installation is also a bit different than the norm.

Each of the two heads empties into a holding tank. The macerator pumps sewage from the holding tank into the electro-scan where it is treated and discharged overboard.

This process is controlled by a Raritan hold=n-treat control unit. This enables me to store waste where that is mandatory, and discharge safely and legally elsewhere.

holdntreat controls

Hawgwash said:

Peggy, I'm going to put you right on the spot here. First, I have a pal with a macerator that has been chewing away, nonstop since 1990 and he says he would have nothing else because of its simplicity. So, Peggy, considering 90% on the hook time, if you were looking at a boat or wanting a new system what would your 1-2-3 system choices be?

Click to expand...

It would depend on whether the hook is in waters where it's legal to flush untreated waste overboard...'cuz that's what dumping a tank is. If you are, and you're either alone in the anchorage or separated from only a few other boats enough, I wouldn't even use the tank...I'd flush the toilet directly overboard.

If you're in, or ever cruise to, waters where holding or treatment are the only legal options, or the anchorage is too crowded to flush directly overboard if you have any consideration for others, to use the macerator legally, you'd have to up anchor to move to waters where it's legal to dump the tank, which can be a real PITA a lot of times. So I'd go with a treatment device. You'd have to also have at least a small tank too, so I'd add the "hold 'n' treat" system holdntreat controls

Iow, there is no "one size fits all" answer to your question 'cuz 90% on the hook isn't 100% and it depends on where you drop the hook.

Btw...there is no longer any HAZMAT issue with the PuraSan cartridges...they can now be shipped regular ground or air.

HeadMistress; said:

Iow, there is no "one size fits all" answer to your question 'cuz 90% on the hook isn't 100% and it depends on where you drop the hook.

Click to expand...

Appreciate the response, Peggy and I should have been more explicit about use.

Buddy holds where he has to and dumps when ok to do so.
His cruising habits are close to mine, ie;

90% hook = isolation (few boats) with dump safe open water moves every 3-7 days. Dock stop no more than once a week.
So, stay legal and hold when required, dump when reasonable and respectful.

The actual type of system, vacuflush vs macerator vs lectrosan etc.???

I really like the sounds of Kevin's system. Most of the time I am in waters that would allow a treatment system but occasionally find locations that are zero discharge. It would be nice to be able to discharge treated waste on a routine basis but be able to hold it it when in a marina, crowded anchorage, or zero-discharge zone. Finding working and or open pump out stations can be challenging at times.

Edit: I just read the pdf that Peggy linked to. I WANT! I will add it to the list of things that I may wish to install on a new trawler. Sounds like it might run me about 3 boat bucks though...

The actual VacuFlush is just a toilet that begins with the bowl and ends with a vacuum pump. However, Dometic/SeaLand does bundle the VacuFlush TOILET with a holding tank and a vent line filter and calls that a "system,"--which does NOT make it easy for owners to understand how their toilet works and how to trouble-shoot it!

Now that we've cleared that up... The type of toilet you have doesn't matter...they all--including the VacuFlush--flush into a tank or a treatment device or directly overboard. Whether the toilet macerates or not (the VacuFlush doesn't, btw) only matters if you're flushing directly overboard...solids are 75% water and are also broken up by any toilet pump so they dissolve completely pretty quickly in the tank, as does quick-dissolve TP...so it's not necessary for the toilet OR tank discharge pump to be a macerator if you're flushing into a tank (and I'm partial to the SeaLand T-Pump, an electric diaphragm pump).

So your question really comes down to whether to go with just a tank big enough to last at least several days that can either be pumped or dumped vs. a treatment device with a smaller tank for use in NZD waters.

Unless I were on the Great Lakes, New England or the FL Keys or SoCal, which are where the majority of NDZs of any size are,I'd go with treatment plus a smaller tank to use when I had no choice and the "hold 'n' treat" system to be able to empty the tank without having to find a pumpout.

I'm partial to the PuraSan over the ElectroScan for several reasons: it works equally well in salt or fresh water....it costs less...and is easier to maintain. However, if you're always in salt water or go up a fresh water river so seldom that adding salt to each flush while in it wouldn't be a hardship, the ElectroScan can be a better choice because it doesn't need any added chemicals.

Kevin, you do realize that you can have it both ways...flush the toilet into the ES to be treated and go overboard instead of always going into the tank first? And doing it that way except when you have no choice but to use the tank really cuts down on holding tank maintenance...odor control etc.

Dave, you don't have to install a V/Flush to have the same SYSTEM that Kevin has...you can install any toilet you like (which for me would be Raritan Marine Elegance). So I think you can prob'ly cut the cost down to two boat bucks or even less if you go with a manual toilet.

HeadMistress said:

Kevin, you do realize that you can have it both ways...flush the toilet into the ES to be treated and go overboard instead of always going into the tank first? And doing it that way except when you have no choice but to use the tank really cuts down on holding tank maintenance...odor control etc.

Click to expand...

I do...

What I did is to remove our old large holding tank, and in its place install the Raritan hold n treat with their 15 gallon holding tank.

Since I did not want to change out the vaccuflush heads at that time, it was a easy conversion.

I did not know the new purasan tablets are not haz mat. I had actually bought a new purasan to replace the old gravity fed model and UPS stopped my shipment because Alaska is only serviced by air, even if you ship ground.

That was the driving force for the electroscan.

I would not have a boat without a treatment system. People just do not know what they are missing.

Peggie, thanks for the replies. I used to call Vic about this stuff but I'm not going to bother him with anything Raritan considering, well, you know! (but this reminds me I should call him or shoot him an e-mail to see how he's doing with retirement).

I wasn't expecting so many replies with so much knowledge and thus I left out a few things. There is an Electro-Scan sitting in my garage along with the "kitty litter" salt-feed unit. We found we went through way too much salt in mid/upper Chesapeake and then when in FL and Abacos the plates would calcify. I was an early adopter of Hold N' Treat and Raritan hadn't yet adapted the Purasan to it. Once they did Vic suggested I switch to the Purasan and I've been very happy. Right now, though, as happens just about every year at this time, the chemical will not drain into the Purasan. If it weren't for the check-valve waste would actually "climb" up to the treatment canister. But I'll figure something out as I usually do each year.

Also note: Even when offshore I really prefer to discharge treated waste as opposed to raw.

Enough about boat #1 as this is really about boat #2 (36' trawler). I've got a first generation Purasan with that gravity feed system new sitting on the boat ready to be installed. But I don't want that same issue. It doesn't have HNT controls so I'll have to add those one way or another. It is a shame that I may have to ditch that system and buy the EX as if I want the newer chemical delivery system the upgrade almost the same price as a new unit! This is a decision that I will have to make. Ugh.

I really am interested, though in your suggestion about routing waste directly to the Type I. I know this is how systems used to be. Are you saying add a Y-valve that goes from head (I'm a Marine Elegance fresh-water kinda guy) to either the Type III or the Type I? What about when the Type III is full? Do you suggest routing it to just a pump out fitting or also adding another valve so the Type I can treat it when legal to do so?

Also, having a "conversation" with my contractor about the new holding tank and vent size. The built-in fittings on the tank aren't all that huge and I know from Vic (who knows from you) that the more air the better. It is a 35 gallon Todd tank. It has (2) 1/2" and (2) 1-1/2" female NPT fittings. Only one of those 1/2" fittings is going to be able to be a vent due to installation orientation and I don't think that is large enough? Even though the tank came with the boat and is brand new perhaps I should look at something else? My plan was for two heads to go to the tank and then the tank to HNT Type I.

Thanks Peggy, I get that I don't need any particular toilet to use the hold-n-treat. The boat that I am looking at currently has a Techma head with freshwater flush. I actually really like my Raritan manual head that I have on my current boat but.... wife likes the idea of an electric flush head.

Since it would be freshwater flush, the Purasan Hold-n-treat sounds like the plan.

I really am interested, though in your suggestion about routing waste directly to the Type I. I know this is how systems used to be.

They still are, unless you just WANT to go to the tank first, as Kevin does.

Are you saying add a Y-valve that goes from head (I'm a Marine Elegance fresh-water kinda guy) to either the Type III or the Type I?

Yep

What about when the Type III is full?

You pump or dump the same as you've always done UNLESS you've also installed the "hold 'n' treat" controls. (Click on the link provided above to read all about that.)

However, if all your flushes are going directly overboard from the Type I except when you're waters where you can't use it, there will be little need to empty the tank.

Do you suggest routing it to just a pump out fitting or also adding another valve so the Type I can treat it when legal to do so?

The tank should be installed and plumbed just as any other holding tank--pumpout line, vent line, overboard discharge line with pump. And a y-valve if you didn't specify two discharge ports in the tank....the Type I is installed separately with the ability to flush it directly overboard or into the tank, and the 'hold n treat' controls will be added to allow the tank to be emptied via the Type I.

As for your tank...we need to have some one-on-one conversation about your specific installation, 'cuz what you have isn't gonna work. Send me an email or PM if you have no other choice and we'll set up a day/approx time to spend 30-40 minutes on the phone.

I went with an electroscan with salt feed that goes directly overboard or into the already on board holding tank.....

Overboard if not in a NDZ.....into the holding tank if in a NDZ for pumpout or just pump overboard when clear of NDZ.

It's not only in NDZs that it's illegal to discharge UNtreated waste (flush a toilet directly overboard or dump a tank)...you must be in open ocean at least 3 miles from the nearest point on the whole US coastline to do that legally.
(You prob'ly know that, but others reading this may not).

Since you already have the ES, the tank and the overboard discharge pump, all you need to be able to empty the tank through the ES anywhere outside an NDZ are the "hold 'n' treat" controls.

psneeld said:

I went with an electroscan with salt feed that goes directly overboard or into the already on board holding tank.....

Click to expand...

I've had other people suggest this method (Type I to Type III/tank) and I am not 100% convinced that is a good idea or not. The people at Raritan I've spoken to do not recommend it. I would guess with a Purasan the held treated waste may have enough chemical in it to keep bacteria away for a while, but not with the ES? I'm also not 100% clear if it is ever legal to discharge from a Type III (inside of 3 miles) even if it holds treated waste. I guess I need to read the regulations more.

Type I MSDs 101:

Federal law requires a Type I MSD to reduce bacteria count to a max. of 1000/100ml...both Raritan devices reduce it to <10. However, only ONE of the li'l buggers have to survive in a tank to multiply into a zillion very quickly, especially in hot weather...which is why waste must go directly overboard for it be considered "treated" waste, 'cuz once it goes into a tank there's no way to know whether it even meets legal standards . That makes it illegal to dump a tank inside the "3 mile limit" even if it's been treated before it went into the tank and--before the "hold 'n' treat" system existed--the reason Raritan recommends against sending treated waste into a tank instead of overboard whenever possible.

Raritan's "hold 'n' treat" system makes it possible to empty (note that I said "empty," not "dump") a tank legally inside the 3 mile limit wherever the discharge of treated waste is legal.

I'm also not 100% clear if it is ever legal to discharge from a Type III (inside of 3 miles) even if it holds treated waste.

Nope...and if you really want to plow through the regulations in all their glorious legalese, you'll find 'em here: PART 140--MARINE SANITATION DEVICE STANDARD Parts 1-3 apply to vessel owners.

Ok class...any questions?


(Btw, Amazon finally has my new book in stock
www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Boat-Odors/dp/1892399784/)

HeadMistress; said:

(Btw, Amazon finally has my new book in stock
www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Boat-Odors/dp/1892399784/)

Click to expand...

Your book, Peggy, has all manner of odors covered? Not just heads, right?

Maybe even mod after party odors?

I'll order one and challenge others to do the same if only because you are so generous with your help and knowledge, here.

It not only deals with all manner of odors...the subtitle is "a comprehensive guide to marine sanitation systems and other sources of aggravation and odor."

Sailboatowners.com also carries it in their online store...their listing includes the table of contents, so you can see for yourself what's included:
The New Get Rid of Boat Odors

But please don't buy it just to reward me for hanging out with y'all and answering your questions...buy it only if it's a book that'll be useful to you!

HeadMistress said:

Raritan's "hold 'n' treat" system makes it possible to empty (note that I said "empty," not "dump") a tank legally inside the 3 mile limit wherever the discharge of treated waste is legal.

Click to expand...

Which, to me, brings up the question of why is there any such thing as a "No Discharge Zone". The Clean Water Act from 1972 covered all this stuff. I put a Type I in my 30' power cat years ago because the alternative was pumping out. Then, a truck came to the marina and transported the waste to the local treatment plant that is well known for dumping RAW waste into the same body of water my boat is in. Go figure!

Why have cities been built on or very near water forever? Not for fresh water. Not for shipping. For getting rid of poop!

The dirty little secrets....

Why are there no discharge zones? Ignorant politicians.

mixman; said:

...dumping RAW waste into the same body of water my boat is in. Go figure!Why have cities been built on or very near water forever? Not for fresh water. Not for shipping. For getting rid of poop!The dirty little secrets....

Click to expand...

Staying at The Little Inn At The Bay in Newport CA once and there was a duck swimming in the pool. Guy got all huffy about it "messing" in the pool. When I said the duck was just getting even for us crapping in his pool forever, he got even huffier. Maybe he was one of Hopcars ignorant politicians.

...why is there any such thing as a "No Discharge Zone". The Clean Water Act from 1972 covered all this stuff.

It was actually the 1978 version of the CWA that gave us marine sanitation laws, but I'm just nitpicking... To answer your question...

Because a) politicians need to be perceived as "doing something" so they pander to their base...and b) because Americans have a history of deciding that if there's a law on the books that isn't being enforced, the answer is a new law (that won't be enforced any better).

I've always considered it the ultimate irony that the very DAY RI's statewide NDZ law went into effect, a massive sewage treatment plant spill in Providence closed all the shellfish beds and beaches at that end of Narragansett Bay for at least two weeks.

Hawgwash said:

Your book, Peggy, has all manner of odors covered? Not just heads, right?

Maybe even mod after party odors?

I'll order one and challenge others to do the same if only because you are so generous with your help and knowledge, here.

Click to expand...

It is well worth the very modest cost. You will not be sorry!

Careful this thread doesn't decend into the abyss of ecological/political sewage treatment discussions.

But it can be fun.

So if I was to add a Purasan to an existing system, I would need to buy a Purasan and a hold n treat control system. What else? Do I need to get a transfer pump to go from the holding tank to the Purasan? Do you need another thruhull for the Purasan output?

dhays said:

So if I was to add a Purasan to an existing system, I would need to buy a Purasan and a hold n treat control system. What else? Do I need to get a transfer pump to go from the holding tank to the Purasan? Do you need another thruhull for the Purasan output?

Click to expand...

Yes, you need a macerator pump to move the waste to the purasan


No you do not need another through hull if you already have one for your macerator.

Tank-macerator-purasan-overboard.

Thanks Kevin!

mixman said:

Which, to me, brings up the question of why is there any such thing as a "No Discharge Zone". The Clean Water Act from 1972 covered all this stuff. I put a Type I in my 30' power cat years ago because the alternative was pumping out. Then, a truck came to the marina and transported the waste to the local treatment plant that is well known for dumping RAW waste into the same body of water my boat is in. Go figure!

Why have cities been built on or very near water forever? Not for fresh water. Not for shipping. For getting rid of poop!

The dirty little secrets....

Click to expand...

Think about all the bacteria that make it from shower water right out the thru hull from the shower drain. Yep .....and based on some boaters, reaching and cleaning certain parts of their body well before they reach the shower is doubtful.

Or, certain clothing washed in an onboard washer......

Or hands washed in a sink after changing diapers....

I could go on.....but seeing how rediculous this all is unless every boater is a germophobe....

Keeping bacteria out of the water should be everyone's best effort ....but will ultimately lt be less than perfect without major changes to even gray water laws.