Raritan Purasan EX

Wxx3...

Not sure how to get a boating Czar that could keep things in perspective...even with the BoatUS foundation we seem to be misunderstood on so many levels.

What I don't know, is that with a Purasan Hold-n-treat, can't the Purasan be installed only in relation to the holding tank? In other words it doesn't matter how far away from the head it is only that it be close enough to the holding tank and a fresh water line?

Why would you want to send everything to the tank unless you're in an NDZ and have no choice? Both Raritan Type I MSDs are actually designed to discharge each flush directly overboard, which is the beauty of treatment vs holding...being able to send each flush overboard means you no longer have to turn your boat into a floating honey wagon! Raritan really only developed the HnT to save owners from the hassle and expense of either finding a pumpout or going offshore beyond 3 miles to empty a tank...it was never intended to do nothing but replace pumpouts.

I don't think most of you realize that even if you only send "treated" waste to the tank, you WILL have the same tank maintenance hassle and expense that you have without treatment, 'cuz although both devices reduce the bacteria count to <10/100 ml, it doesn't kill 'em all...and only ONE of the li'l buggers has to survive in the tank to quickly multiply into a zillion (which is the reason why it's just as illegal to dump a tank full of "treated" waste inside 3 miles as it is to dump a tank full of raw waste) you'll still have to deal with same odor and other ongoing tank maintenance issues you have now. So if you install a P/S or ES and the HnT controls to do nothing bu fill the tank with treated waste and empty the tank, the only thing you'd gain from your $1500-$2000 expense is freedom from pumpouts.

Chris...you said, The best (I think) place to install the system is not particularly near the head; it'd be closer to just forward of and slightly under the holding tank, lot o' space, very near the existing discharge thru-hull... essentially in the place where the existing macerator pump lives.

Unless you also plan to only flush the toilet directly into the tank and use the PS or ES only to empty the tank (see my comments about THAT idea immediately above!) that prob'ly won't work, because the treatment tank not only needs to be within 6' of most toilets, and also no further from it's discharge thru-hull than it is from the toilet. With few exceptions, work-arounds only create major "head" aches. There's an old saying that I think might apply here: "if you think a pro is expensive, wait till you find out how much an amateur costs!"

Look fellas...There's only one reason why anyone should spend the money to install a treatment device: Because the idea that you can be free from the aggravation of using and maintaining a tank except for the rare occasions when you visit an NDZ is a dream come true. If that's not true for you, don't spend the money for one.

Well, I love the idea of a Purasan EX with a hold-n-treat system. However, since the Washington State Dept of Ecology is planning on petitioning the EPA to make essentially all WA waters East of the New Dungeness Lighthouse a NDZ, it would likely be a waste of money. Even if the EPA doesn't approve the request this time around, they will likely do it eventually, making a MSD1 installation pointless.

dhays said:

Well, I love the idea of a Purasan EX with a hold-n-treat system. However, since the Washington State Dept of Ecology is planning on petitioning the EPA to make essentially all WA waters East of the New Dungeness Lighthouse a NDZ, it would likely be a waste of money. Even if the EPA doesn't approve the request this time around, they will likely do it eventually, making a MSD1 installation pointless.

Click to expand...

I too fear the bone heads winning the battle...

But I figured if I had just a few years out of the system...it was worth it.

I may petition insurance companies to fight the NDZs, based on how much damage I see boats trying to get to the pumpout facility.....

HeadMistress said:

Chris...you said, The best (I think) place to install the system is not particularly near the head; it'd be closer to just forward of and slightly under the holding tank, lot o' space, very near the existing discharge thru-hull... essentially in the place where the existing macerator pump lives.

Unless you also plan to only flush the toilet directly into the tank and use the PS or ES only to empty the tank (see my comments about THAT idea immediately above!) that prob'ly won't work, because the treatment tank not only needs to be within 6' of most toilets, and also no further from it's discharge thru-hull than it is from the toilet. With few exceptions, work-arounds only create major "head" aches. There's an old saying that I think might apply here: "if you think a pro is expensive, wait till you find out how much an amateur costs!"

Look fellas...There's only one reason why anyone should spend the money to install a treatment device: Because the idea that you can be free from the aggravation of using and maintaining a tank except for the rare occasions when you visit an NDZ is a dream come true. If that's not true for you, don't spend the money for one.

Click to expand...

Well, by not particularly close... I just measured, and it'd be about 5' as the crow flies from "ter-let" to PS. It's about a 7' run, as the hose bends, from toilet to holding tank in current configuration. From holding tank to where I envisioned mounting a PS would be about 2' -- or maybe 3' as the hose bends. And from PS to thru-hull, another foot and a half.

(Not sure I get why a PS HnT would need to be X close to the toilet. Given that the toilet shoots waste to theholding tank (H), and then the HnT draws waste from the holding tank (H), I'dhave thought proximity to the holding tank would be the more important factor?)

My focus has been on avoiding pump-outs, both in terms of time and money. The easiest/closest for us in in marina, not subsidized by the State, so not a $5 cheapie. I could go elsewhere, at the cost of diesel and time, but convenience starts going downhill from there. (OTOH, I put in a new sensor toward the end of last season, so knowing when pump-outs are actually necessary -- not just maybe, or "just in case" -- could conceivably help manage that a bit better.)

I've been thinking about the HnT so I could avoid discharges, even of treated waste, in marinas -- although I guess that's a little over-kill? -- and also because there's an NZD down the Bay that we visit from time to time.

Otherwise, I haven't reckoned on any reduced maintenance on the rest of the system.

Unless a couple of the other dealer/installer contacts suggest a more manageable amount of $$$s (and also due to some other projects I've got going on), I may just have to continue mulling this over for another year or so...

-Chris

dhays said:

Well, I love the idea of a Purasan EX with a hold-n-treat system. However, since the Washington State Dept of Ecology is planning on petitioning the EPA to make essentially all WA waters East of the New Dungeness Lighthouse a NDZ, it would likely be a waste of money. Even if the EPA doesn't approve the request this time around, they will likely do it eventually, making a MSD1 installation pointless.

Click to expand...

Unless they've cooked up a new one in the last 6 months, that effort has already failed because instead of only going after the real problem--frieghters, tankers, cruise ships etc--they tried to include all vessels, commercial and recreational. The tug, commercial fishing and big work boat owners went ballistic because retrofitting their vessels with holding tanks would have cost them literally hundreds of thousands of $$. They raised so much hell that they WA environmental agency folded it's tent and retreated. It's gonna be a while before they try it again, 'cuz it's gonna take some time for 'em to come up with a plan isn't likely result in mass lynchings of WA Ecology people, that the state can also afford to enforce....something that's becoming an issue in most states these days when it comes to a lot of programs, not only boating. And I suspect that means any new law will apply only to those big commercial vessels, at least for quite a while.

So if you really want a treatment device, I think you'll prob'ly get quite a few years use out of it before it becomes illegal, if it ever does.

Good perspective Peggy. As of this month, the WA Dept of Ecology is still planning on filing the petition with the EPA with April 2016 being the earliest possible filing date. No idea how long the EPA will take to review the petition once they get it.

Chris....unless you spend a LOT of time at Herrington Harbor, you won't use the tank enough to justify the HmT system because Herring Bay is the only NDZ on the whole Chesapeake Bay. So if I were you, my first step would be install a PS so you CAN stop using the tank. THEN I'd add the HnT controls IF you really need 'em...'cuz you can use the rest rooms at Herrington Harbor while you're there (whether you'd go ashore, use the lee rail or flush through the PS if you have to get up in the middle of the night, is up to you!

To answer this question:
(Not sure I get why a PS HnT would need to be X close to the toilet. Given that the toilet shoots waste to theholding tank (H), and then the HnT draws waste from the holding tank (H), I'dhave thought proximity to the holding tank would be the more important factor?)

First, the PS and the HnT are not a single system. The PS is a device designed to be connected to the tilet...a device that treats each flush and sends overboard or--only if absolutely necessary--to the tank. The tank isn't a part of the PS installation, nor does the PS DRAW waste from the tank (if you'd read the manual you'd know that there's no way it could!). Apparently you also missed the part in the promo sheet that says "waste is drawn out of the tank by a "transfer pump"" that can be your existing overboard discharge pump. The HnT controls are a just an add-on--a separate system of switches and relays that allow you to use the macerator pump that you now use to dump your tank to send tank contents to the PS where it's treated and discharged overboard. The tank is NOT factor in where the PS has to be installed relative to the tank.

The reason the PS must be installed within X distance of the toilet and within that same distance to the thru-hull is because, except for the luxury all china thrones that have super powerful pumps (Tecma, Marine Elegance Atlantes), 6' is as far as any manual or electric toilet can move bowl contents without a LOT of help from gravity in the amount of time that anyone will spend pumping a manual toilet or leave his finger on a flush button and waste has to get TO the device to be treated. So unless your toilet IS one of those "thrones" it's not "shooting" the waste to the tank, it's only moving it through the head hose for as long as you leave your finger on the button.

The device can't be any further from its discharge thru-hull because there is no pump in an ES or PS...each incoming flush displaces an equal amount in the PS...pushes it out the discharge--which is on the top of it, btw. If the thru-hull is too far from the device, the waste being pushed out from the device doesn't make it over the top of the vented loop to the thru-hull.

You haven't actually read and studied the installation and operation instructions for the PS or the HnT system, all you've done is skim over the high points and jump to conclusions about how you want it to work tha aren't even close to how it needs to work. So I'm afraid I have to be done with this thread unless someone else has questions that don't make it obvious they haven't read the instructions either.

dhays said:

Good perspective Peggy. As of this month, the WA Dept of Ecology is still planning on filing the petition with the EPA with April 2016 being the earliest possible filing date. No idea how long the EPA will take to review the petition once they get it.

Click to expand...

Or when they'll open public comments and hearings...or whether they've only come up with another plan that can't work...which is highly likely if that bunch of enviro thugs who call themselves the "Soundkeepers" have anything to do with it.

ranger42c said:

Unless a couple of the other dealer/installer contacts suggest a more manageable amount of $$$s (and also due to some other projects I've got going on), I may just have to continue mulling this over for another year or so...

-Chris

Click to expand...

Chris,

Not trying to pry into your finances... but... what do you consider as a "manageable amount of $$$s" in this sanitation case? I know... Boats can eat "Boat-Bucks" alive in many ways; but; correct toilet operation IMO is not something to chinch on.. As Peggie mentioned"... wait till you see how much a novice installer costs" (or something to that effect).

If you spend now for a really good professionally installed set up then you should have years ahead with no problems. Also, really good sanitation system helps sell a boat when the time comes.

Best Luck!

I shared and contributed to Chris's confusion I'm afraid and I did read through the instruction for the Purasan and the HNT module. Of course, my reading skills aren't the best. Your explanation above helped clarify it for me.

Just to make sure I get it....
Purasan is connected to the marine toilet, treats the waste for each flush, and then holds it within the Purasan until the next flush. At that point, the toilets pump fills the Purasan with new waste, forcing the now treated waste out through the existing through hull.

The hnt is simply a controller that senses when the holding tank is sufficiently full, then uses the boats existing macerator pump to transfer one "flush equivalent" of holding tank waste to the Purasan and tells it to treat it the same as if the toilet was flushed.

Is that closer to what actually is going on?

I assume now that there are a couple of piping modifications that have to be made to use the HNT. Waste normally would be directed to the Purasan during a flush, but in the case of a NDZ it would be directed to the holding tank instead, bypassing the Purasan. Likewise the holding tank macerator pump needs to direct waste to the Purasan rather than simply overboard as it does now.

I often get the feeling that I would fail the big boat owner intelligence test if such a thing were developed.

Dhays....very close. The trick with going to a holding tank before the Purasan is the hold and treat or just live with a pumpout. But yes, the hold and treat from the holding tank to the Purasan after leaving the NDZ is going to treat and dump overboard.

The system once you sit down and figure out what you really want to happen as the components are really "dumb" as in no moving parts so to speak....is really simple.

dhays said:

I shared and contributed to Chris's confusion I'm afraid and I did read through the instruction for the Purasan and the HNT module. Of course, my reading skills aren't the best. Your explanation above helped clarify it for me.

Just to make sure I get it....
Purasan is connected to the marine toilet, treats the waste for each flush, and then holds it within the Purasan until the next flush. At that point, the toilets pump fills the Purasan with new waste, forcing the now treated waste out through the existing through hull.

The hnt is simply a controller that senses when the holding tank is sufficiently full, then uses the boats existing macerator pump to transfer one "flush equivalent" of holding tank waste to the Purasan and tells it to treat it the same as if the toilet was flushed.

Is that closer to what actually is going on?

I assume now that there are a couple of piping modifications that have to be made to use the HNT. Waste normally would be directed to the Purasan during a flush, but in the case of a NDZ it would be directed to the holding tank instead, bypassing the Purasan. Likewise the holding tank macerator pump needs to direct waste to the Purasan rather than simply overboard as it does now.

I often get the feeling that I would fail the big boat owner intelligence test if such a thing were developed.

Click to expand...

OK, the first part you got down correctly, and I think you got the last part as well

If you are using a Hold N Trerat control you install the MSD between the holding tank and the overboard through hull.

Then you wire the macerator pump to the Hold N Treat controller.

There is a key pad that the hold N Treat controller uses. It has three key positions. Automatic, No discharge, and override. When in a NDZ according to the manual you can put the unit in no discharge mode, and remove the key, making a legal USCG approved no discharge lockout.

From a practical standpoint here's how the HNT and the MSD work on my boat (and I have the complete Raritan solution, being their holding tank, & MSD). When I am in a NDZ I turn the unit to no discharge. When I leave the NDZ I turn the key to automatic, and the unit does through as many treatment cycles as necessary to empty the holding tank.

Occasionally I use the manual override mode to get the last tiny bit out of the holding tank (although my level sensors are very accurate)

When not in a NDZ I leave the unit in automatic and it will run through a cycle approx every other flush.

That is how the manufacturer intended the unit to be used, as it is exactly how it was shipped as an integrated system from them.

For two head installations I think this is the optimum setup. That is because with a normal purasan or electroscan installation there is a signal from the MSD to the head's electric flush when you trigger a treatment cycle which lasts approx 2 minutes. Additional flushing cannot occur during the treatment process. Double flushing of poop for example requires waiting for a treatment cycle to end. Two heads will compound this issue.

Moving waste from the heads to a small holding tank not only allows NDZ compliance, it also allows for no change to the head user process. Since my HNT only triggers a treatment cycle approx every 2 flushes it also most efficiently uses the MSD

HeadMistress said:

Or when they'll open public comments and hearings...or whether they've only come up with another plan that can't work...which is highly likely if that bunch of enviro thugs who call themselves the "Soundkeepers" have anything to do with it.

Click to expand...

I reviewed the public comments that the WA DOE received during the public comment period. It was interesting. Most responses were in the form of form letters. Most of them were supporting the NDZ zone, only about 1/4 were in opposition.

I take that to mean that it is easy to get folks to support regulations on someone else. They might feel differently if it meant increasing utility rates to upgrade sewage systems to eliminate the Combined Sewage Overflow events.

HeadMistress said:

Chris....unless you spend a LOT of time at Herrington Harbor, you won't use the tank enough to justify the HmT system because Herring Bay is the only NDZ on the whole Chesapeake Bay. So if I were you, my first step would be install a PS so you CAN stop using the tank. THEN I'd add the HnT controls IF you really need 'em...'cuz you can use the rest rooms at Herrington Harbor while you're there (whether you'd go ashore, use the lee rail or flush through the PS if you have to get up in the middle of the night, is up to you!

To answer this question:
(Not sure I get why a PS HnT would need to be X close to the toilet. Given that the toilet shoots waste to theholding tank (H), and then the HnT draws waste from the holding tank (H), I'dhave thought proximity to the holding tank would be the more important factor?)

First, the PS and the HnT are not a single system. The PS is a device designed to be connected to the tilet...a device that treats each flush and sends overboard or--only if absolutely necessary--to the tank. The tank isn't a part of the PS installation, nor does the PS DRAW waste from the tank (if you'd read the manual you'd know that there's no way it could!). Apparently you also missed the part in the promo sheet that says "waste is drawn out of the tank by a "transfer pump"" that can be your existing overboard discharge pump. The HnT controls are a just an add-on--a separate system of switches and relays that allow you to use the macerator pump that you now use to dump your tank to send tank contents to the PS where it's treated and discharged overboard. The tank is NOT factor in where the PS has to be installed relative to the tank.

So unless your toilet IS one of those "thrones" it's not "shooting" the waste to the tank, it's only moving it through the head hose for as long as you leave your finger on the button.

You haven't actually read and studied the installation and operation instructions for the PS or the HnT system, all you've done is skim over the high points and jump to conclusions about how you want it to work tha aren't even close to how it needs to work. So I'm afraid I have to be done with this thread unless someone else has questions that don't make it obvious they haven't read the instructions either.

Click to expand...

Well, hang on. Yes, I've read (not skimmed) the manual. A lot. Yes, I've probably not understood part of it. And I've been studying on it since about last June. With time off for beer, from time to time. And I also asked Raritan.

Specifically about the HnT, because I doubted I could ever sell "let's go ashore at 3 am" idea to wifey. (Yes I know Herring Bay is the only NDZ, yes we do go there often, yes it might not be often enough to be worth the money.)

Greg (Raritan) acknowledged I'd be sending waste from toilet (Jasco Quiet Flush electric) to holding tank (that H thing), and that I'd need a "transfer pump" to move waste from H to PS of ES. (I think especially because I stated up front our current overboard macerator is toast, so couldn't use that). So my language about how waste moved from holding tank to PS was a bit cavalier, but otherwise, I've got all that. (I think. And Kevin's description pretty much tracks with what I've thought I knew.)

That still leaves me with some doubt about a need for mounting the PS in near proximity to the toilet, in this kind of installation. Seems superfluous, given that toilet discharge is going to the holding tank first anyway. Not an argument, just a puzzle.

Anyway, I knew up front that probably HnT could work for us (depending on cost), but PS or ES by itself wasn't gonna ring enough chimes.

I've known about basic component costs for quite some time (Parks) but have only recently heard one (and only one, so far) ballpark guesstimate about installation costs... and that was sorta staggering. I could probably do it myself, with Raritan coaching, but it'd hurt me do get down in there... so it's more likely a "write a check" job if we go ahead with it.

Given that first staggering estimate... unless the other folks come through with something closer to 3-digit numbers, we'll probably end up paying the pump-out costs for the rest of our lives. We'll see.

-Chris

Art said:

Chris,

Not trying to pry into your finances... but... what do you consider as a "manageable amount of $$$s" in this sanitation case? I know... Boats can eat "Boat-Bucks" alive in many ways; but; correct toilet operation IMO is not something to chinch on.. As Peggie mentioned"... wait till you see how much a novice installer costs" (or something to that effect).

If you spend now for a really good professionally installed set up then you should have years ahead with no problems. Also, really good sanitation system helps sell a boat when the time comes.

Best Luck!

Click to expand...

Ahhh, there's the rub!

I dunno. When I first started dreaming about it, I was thinking (guessing) maybe a boat buck and half, and that we'd amortize that over about 5 years or so.

Well then I saw component costs. Hmmm...

And then I got the first installation guess. ????? Hmmm....

And in the meantime, I replaced the current holding tank sensor, so we maybe don't have to pump out as often as we had been last year (out of self-defense) when the earlier sensor was all clogged up.

A buck and a half, not chump change but maybe doable. Add a thou as reality sets in... OK, maybe still worth it in convenience costs. Over 3 boat bucks? That's a lot of pump-outs!

-Chris

Despite the obligation of boaters to convert their vessels to functioning floating sewage treatment plants, as well reflected in this thread, Sydney Water, which runs sewage collection and treatment, is setting up more overflow pipes to direct untreated raw sewage into Sydney Harbour when the system experiences overloading. As it does whenever we experience significant rain. Tambourine Bay, where we used to moor, regularly shows evidence of sewage.

ksanders said:

...
That is because with a normal purasan or electroscan installation there is a signal from the MSD to the head's electric flush when you trigger a treatment cycle which lasts approx 2 minutes. Additional flushing cannot occur during the treatment process. Double flushing of poop for example requires waiting for a treatment cycle to end. Two heads will compound this issue.

Click to expand...

Kevin,

That is not the way my Electoscan or Purasan works. Now I am talking about the NON nht or the system you have. I have the conventional treatment tank that is connected to thru hull or holding tank, depending on Y valve.

But electronically, both systems will allow simultaneous flushes, in fact, the Atlantes has a continuous flush mode which I use to run hot water thru the system which does wonders to keep everything flowing well.

THe manual does say to let the cycle end before you flush again, but you can flush again at any time.

Also, thanks to your advice I changed from the Electroscan to the Puriscan EX. Even though you do not follow your own advice, I am very happy and it was very well thought out advice you gave. Thanks.

Wxx3 said:

Kevin,

That is not the way my Electoscan or Purasan works. Now I am talking about the NON nht or the system you have. I have the conventional treatment tank that is connected to thru hull or holding tank, depending on Y valve.

But electronically, both systems will allow simultaneous flushes, in fact, the Atlantes has a continuous flush mode which I use to run hot water thru the system which does wonders to keep everything flowing well.

THe manual does say to let the cycle end before you flush again, but you can flush again at any time.

Also, thanks to your advice I changed from the Electroscan to the Puriscan EX. Even though you do not follow your own advice, I am very happy and it was very well thought out advice you gave. Thanks.

Click to expand...

OK, then you have it wired so that the head flush mechanism triggers the MSD, where I have always wired mine so that you use the MSD to trigger the head to flush.

The challenge with the method you are using is that there is the potential to discharge untreated sewage, if you flush quicker than the treatment cycle. I suspect (but am not sure) that the manufacturer did not intend it to be done that way.

I am still not sold on the Electroscan over the purasan for fresh water applications, even though my posts might be coming across that way. I don't know if I shared this with you at the time but I actually ordered the new Purasan EX and had UPS turn it around to my wholesaler saying they could not ship it to Alaska, even ground.

So, I use the Electroscan only because I cannot get the chemical to Alaska without barging it up. That said, I am very happy with it, now that the bugs with the salt feed are worked out.

I was pretty happy with my old Purasan, except that my installation did not allow for enough height of the tablet canister, making for difficulty getting the solution to drain out. When I heard about the Purasan EX I was thrilled because it solved those issues, and also gave a low tablet level alarm.

BruceK said:

Despite the obligation of boaters to convert their vessels to functioning floating sewage treatment plants, as well reflected in this thread, Sydney Water, which runs sewage collection and treatment, is setting up more overflow pipes to direct untreated raw sewage into Sydney Harbour when the system experiences overloading. As it does whenever we experience significant rain. Tambourine Bay, where we used to moor, regularly shows evidence of sewage.

Click to expand...

Earlier this month, a significant CSO in Puget Sound

There was also a CSO into Lake Washington over the last 48 hours.

That still leaves me with some doubt about a need for mounting the PS in near proximity to the toilet, in this kind of installation. Seems superfluous, given that toilet discharge is going to the holding tank first anyway. Not an argument, just a puzzle.

Chris you still seem to consider the PS to be an add-on the holding tank, when it's actually an add-on to the toilet that's supposed to free you from the need to use the tank! Why would you send EVERY flush to the tank first when the only times you'll have to do that are when you visit Herring Bay? That might make sense if your only cruises are from your slip in the South River to a guest slip in Herrington Harbor South for the weekend, but it would certainly be a waste of a $1500 device.

HeadMistress said:

That still leaves me with some doubt about a need for mounting the PS in near proximity to the toilet, in this kind of installation. Seems superfluous, given that toilet discharge is going to the holding tank first anyway. Not an argument, just a puzzle.

Chris you still seem to consider the PS to be an add-on the holding tank, when it's actually an add-on to the toilet that's supposed to free you from the need to use the tank! Why would you send EVERY flush to the tank first when the only times you'll have to do that are when you visit Herring Bay? That might make sense if your only cruises are from your slip in the South River to a guest slip in Herrington Harbor South for the weekend, but it would certainly be a waste of a $1500 device.

Click to expand...

Well, we assume we'll end up passing through other NDZs eventually, too. Most of our boating is here on the Chesapeake, but we do like to go other places, too. And of course we have a boat with a head on it so we can use it everywhere (no 3 am trips to shore, no matter where we are).

Now that I'm seeing what overall costs might be, I suspect you're right: too much $$$ and not enough time to amortize that.

In answer to that question, though: because that's the way Raritan describes the HnT path. I have their document L435v0813 -- Hold 'n' Treat Holding Tank component system -- with a nifty illustration that shows flow from toilet to holding tank to PS or ES to overboard. Another Raritan doc, L519v0815 -- PURASAN EX Hold n' Treat (Operations, Maintenance, and Installation Instructions) -- that Greg sent me last September has a different diagram that illustrates the same flow path.

(Can't find these on their public site o include link,s and don't have a way to upload a pic here... but that's pretty much the way Mac and Greg described it to me.)

The latter doc also has a pic of the "Tablet Dispenser, hence my previous use of the word "tablets." As I look at it now, I'm reminded that I knew (last September) about needing a pressurized water source. I've heard memory is a wonderful thing; sometimes wish I had one.

-Chris

HeadMistress said:

[/I]Why would you send EVERY flush to the tank first when the only times you'll have to do that are when you visit [an NDZ]?

Click to expand...

I remember discussing the option of either flushing direct to Type I or Type III. On my power cat I set the system up to go to the Type III first (tank). When convenient I turn the Hold n' Treat system on and empty the tank. I certainly see the advantages by-passing the tank but here are reasons to flush to the tank first:

1 - When in an NDZ (of course).
2 - The Marine Elegance heads I have only use about a quart of water (I think) when flushed in "water saver" mode. Why run a Type I treatment cycle for that little bit of waste?
3 - When anchored I, or others, may want to swim. Even with treated waste I wouldn't want to discharge at such a time.

I'm also thinking that using HNT cycles only will prolong the life of a Type I device as it is running the optimum amount of waste per cycle (my second point above). It is more wear and tear on the transfer pump, but those are much cheaper to repair and easy to swap out.

I set it up pretty simply - having two heads.

One head has LectraSan only and one has holding tank only, with no way to dump overboard - must be pumped at shore or by mobile pump boat. When in NDZ I place combo/key lock onto chain that fits tightly over LectraSan head's seat cover; and, I turn off power to that head. Inspectors appreciate that arrangement!

ranger42c said:

Well, we assume we'll end up passing through other NDZs eventually, too. Most of our boating is here on the Chesapeake, but we do like to go other places, too. And of course we have a boat with a head on it so we can use it everywhere (no 3 am trips to shore, no matter where we are).

Now that I'm seeing what overall costs might be, I suspect you're right: too much $$$ and not enough time to amortize that.

In answer to that question, though: because that's the way Raritan describes the HnT path. I have their document L435v0813 -- Hold 'n' Treat Holding Tank component system -- with a nifty illustration that shows flow from toilet to holding tank to PS or ES to overboard. Another Raritan doc, L519v0815 -- PURASAN EX Hold n' Treat (Operations, Maintenance, and Installation Instructions) -- that Greg sent me last September has a different diagram that illustrates the same flow path.

(Can't find these on their public site o include link,s and don't have a way to upload a pic here... but that's pretty much the way Mac and Greg described it to me.)

The latter doc also has a pic of the "Tablet Dispenser, hence my previous use of the word "tablets." As I look at it now, I'm reminded that I knew (last September) about needing a pressurized water source. I've heard memory is a wonderful thing; sometimes wish I had one.

-Chris

Click to expand...

mixman said:

I remember discussing the option of either flushing direct to Type I or Type III. On my power cat I set the system up to go to the Type III first (tank). When convenient I turn the Hold n' Treat system on and empty the tank. I certainly see the advantages by-passing the tank but here are reasons to flush to the tank first:

1 - When in an NDZ (of course).
2 - The Marine Elegance heads I have only use about a quart of water (I think) when flushed in "water saver" mode. Why run a Type I treatment cycle for that little bit of waste?
3 - When anchored I, or others, may want to swim. Even with treated waste I wouldn't want to discharge at such a time.

I'm also thinking that using HNT cycles only will prolong the life of a Type I device as it is running the optimum amount of waste per cycle (my second point above). It is more wear and tear on the transfer pump, but those are much cheaper to repair and easy to swap out.

Click to expand...

I agree with both of you! The Hold N Treat is a great product that solves the issue of what to do when you are in a place that you either cannot, or just do not want to discharge.

Raritan clearly had the intention in mind of using the holding tank as the source for their MSD's. That's the only reason for the hold n treat control to exist.

Peggy while being probably the worlds expert in marine sanitation clearly has a bias against Raritan's Hold N Treat. Nothing wrong with that... She is a human being after all.

Art, while your method of locking out one of the heads on your boat might work for you, the very concept goes against the first basic design criteria that I used when designing my sanitatation system. That is that both heads needed to be available for use 100% of the time.

Yeah, and there are NDZs along the lower east coast, and then also in New Hampshire, all of which are target areas for our travels. I haven't looked closely enough at those yet to see whether they might be avoidable, and if so, how easily...

But in any case, my "concept" is similar: 100% available 100% of the time.

OTOH, the difference in cost between an up-front HnT installation and on-going individual pump-outs forever -- usually about $20/each and under and hour or so of my time -- is what I'm looking at now. Latter might be easier, now that our tank-level gauge is working again.

Some of my investigation started when we discovered our nominal 40-gallon waste tank really only gives us about 24 usable gallons. Partly because the tank wasn't large enough to hold 40 gallons in the first place (so the label is simply wrong) and also because the input port is on the side, about 2-3" below the top. And then we were usually/probably/maybe pumping more often than necessary (except for a couple boo-boos) because the sensor was stuck.


Edit: Quick check, I see we spent $290 in pump-outs last year up 'til mid-October... and there would have been two or three more in later October/November. And there's the time factor...

-Chris

ksanders said:

Art, while your method of locking out one of the heads on your boat might work for you, the very concept goes against the first basic design criteria that I used when designing my sanitatation system. That is that both heads needed to be available for use 100% of the time.

Click to expand...

I see your point... However... with only two of us aboard 95% of time.; no problem. Also, we both know where the key is (or combo if desired to use it) as well as where the "hidden" power switch is. Just in case the holding tank head is occupied and an emergency for another comes to light.... LOL

My goals are to keep our waters as clean as can be "reasonably" accomplished while making sure that our boat's sanitation system layout always passes muster with officials!

Peggy while being probably the worlds expert in marine sanitation clearly has a bias against Raritan's Hold N Treat.

No, I do not...and nothing I've said even implies that I do! Just the opposite, in fact...I think it's it the niftiest idea since laws requiring boats to hold or treat were enacted.

However, I definitely DO have a very STRONG bias against storing waste aboard and the hassle and expense required to maintain a holding tank if you don't have to use one. To choose turning your boat into a honey wagon over treat & and discharge directly from the toilet defeats the whole purpose of having a treatment device, no matter how you empty the tank. The Hold 'n' Treat system only makes it easier to do so when you have no choice but to use the tank.

And btw, Chris...

...because that's the way Raritan describes the HnT path. I have their document L435v0813 -- Hold 'n' Treat Holding Tank component system -- with a nifty illustration that shows flow from toilet to holding tank to PS or ES to overboard.

So if a promo piece for a kitchen skillet shows it full of chicken parts, that means that makes it a promo for a skillet that only cooks chicken?

That illustration only shows how the Hold 'n' Treat system works...it only shows how it works to empty a tank. It doesn't address the normal PS or ES installation, it's not to scale, nor does it imply that emptying the tank is the only use or even the primary use for the treatment device. But you've decided that because the promo sheet for Hold 'n' Treat system only show it doing what the H 'n' T system does, that's the only use for the treatment device, which simply isn't true.

Y'all can continue beating this to death if you want to, but I really am done unless someone else tries to put works in my mouth that I've never said or even implied.

Peg, the challenge we are seeing in the field is that there are situations where it is either illegal or a violation of our marina contract to discharge treated waste.
There are also situations where even though it might be allowed, you just do not want to discharge treated waste.

In my area there are no NDZ's. But...

My moorage agreement clearly says that even treated waste is not to be discharged into the marina.

My water maker intake is 8 feet from my waste through hull. I am not interested in discharging waste while I am desalinizing water.

Others have indicated swimming activities. I would not want my family swimming and haveing discharge take place at the same time.

Because of those issues and more, I see real value in the HNT concept, not just for "have to" situations, but more for the "want to" situations.

With a 5 year operational history of using my HNT system, as shipped from the Raritan factory, I have had ZERO maintenance issues regarding the holding tank, and am 100% happy with the freedom of choice that the system provides, again as designed by the factory.

HeadMistress said:

...because that's the way Raritan describes the HnT path. I have their document L435v0813 -- Hold 'n' Treat Holding Tank component system -- with a nifty illustration that shows flow from toilet to holding tank to PS or ES to overboard.

So if a promo piece for a kitchen skillet shows it full of chicken parts, that means that makes it a promo for a skillet that only cooks chicken?

That illustration only shows how the Hold 'n' Treat system works...it only shows how it works to empty a tank. It doesn't address the normal PS or ES installation, it's not to scale, nor does it imply that emptying the tank is the only use or even the primary use for the treatment device. But you've decided that because the promo sheet for Hold 'n' Treat system only show it doing what the H 'n' T system does, that's the only use for the treatment device, which simply isn't true.

Click to expand...

Well, geez, Peggie, I'm on the short end of the stick here. The Raritan guys didn't call those "promo sheets" and they specifically said the second was the "technical document." I haven't "decided" how the HnT works; I've simply described how Raritan told me it works. How the hell am I supposed to know any different?

I ask the company who makes it how it works. They tell me. With supporting document, parts lists, diagrams, installation instructions, etc. I say "No, that can't be right."

???

It happens that their HnT description matches the way I would want to cook chicken with it... but I certainly acknowledge there may be other ways to use the PS/ES systems that don't happen appeal as much to me.

For example, I won't put in a system we can't use everywhere. That's not a criticism of the system, just a fact o' our life. We could use the HnT system; we would not be satisfied with a stand-alone PS or ES because we would not be able to use THE TOILET all the time, any time, whenever the urge moves us. (So to speak. I think that voluntarily puts in the category of having no choice nut to use the holding tank.)

I wasn't arguing that my chicken would be better than anyone else's. I've only tried to better understand what it would take to install it in our particular boat, so we could use it in a way that would meet our needs.

-Chris