Holding Tank with Lectra/San

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
the typical postings and misconceptions of boats and sewage issues could fill the library of Congress.

there are of course situations that are distasteful, but the vast majority of cruisers would never be a problem for others...mostly just the dock condos and sandbar weekenders are.
 
bglad said:
I have come across this system in a couple of boats:

http://raritaneng.com/pdf_files/hold_n_treat/holdntreat.pdf

Permits using your holding tank to buffer your discharges so you are not waiting between flushes. Would seem to cover your circumstance pretty well.
Click to expand...

Underwater outlet makes me nervous; re diagram in your link... but that could be remedied - I quess.

We have two heads. One is LectraSan for acceptable water-areas and one is 30 gal. tank with specially arranged very-low flush toilet (allowing no overboard evac. / i.e. pump out only). Works well for us and keeps things legal.
 
The underwater outlet is a typical install with vented loop to prevent siphoning...

Any particular reason for a needed remedy?
 
psneeld said:
The underwater outlet is a typical install with vented loop to prevent siphoning...

Any particular reason for a needed remedy?
Click to expand...

Just don't trust vented loop for underwater discharge... in the l-o-n-g run that is; especially when that is not really necessary, as in this case. As they say: Shat Happens!!
 
foggysail said:
Peggy--

You have not justified spending $3K+ for on board treatment. Other than having a "feel good, I just saved the waterways" sensation there is no justification. If an installed, working system was allowed to dump into NDZs, I would bite my tongue, say no more against crack pot environmentalists and just install one.
Click to expand...


I may be wrong but I don't think that Peggy was trying to justify the cost, only to clarify the areas where it could be used. We spend all kinds of money on our boats that others may think is unjustified.

I see several reasons why someone may want to install such a system.
1) Being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out.
2) Being able to continue to use a head in areas without adequate pump out facilities.
3) Producing less of an environmental impact in areas that do allow overboard discharge.

Whether those reasons are enough to warrant the cost and added system maintenance/complexity is entirely a different question answerable only by the individual boater.
 
dhays said:
I may be wrong but I don't think that Peggy was trying to justify the cost, only to clarify the areas where it could be used. We spend all kinds of money on our boats that others may think is unjustified.

I see several reasons why someone may want to install such a system.
1) Being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out.
2) Being able to continue to use a head in areas without adequate pump out facilities.
3) Producing less of an environmental impact in areas that do allow overboard discharge.

Whether those reasons are enough to warrant the cost and added system maintenance/complexity is entirely a different question answerable only by the individual boater.
Click to expand...


You must have skipped reading my post 15 in this thread. I clearly stated that IF such a system allowed pump out in NDZ I WOULD GLADLY PURCHASE AND INSTALL ONE. Reasonable cost (below $5K) has nothing to do with my willingness to purchase and install an approved system. I doubt Peggy misunderstands my position in this matter.

But you say these systems allow being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out. GEEZ--- you obviously do not understand that onboard treated waste is forbidden to be dumped in NDZ, treated or untreated. The law does not allow you to avoid the inconvenience of a pump out if in a NDZ.

So if you are one of the apparent many who prefer treating waste prior to discharge while in a zone that permits waste discharge that is just fine. I am not inclined to do so.
 
Last edited:
Underwater outlet makes me nervous;

Why should a holding tank discharge thru-hull below waterline make you any more nervous than a a below-waterline flush water inlet thru-hull for a sea water toilet or a direct overboard discharge thru-hull for a toilet (they're always below waterline)??? Or a below-waterline inlet for a HVAC pump, or a below waterline thru-hull for a sea water cooled engine...below waterline thru-hull for a sea water washdown pump...???
Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Boat-Odors/dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
 
I doubt Peggy misunderstands my position in this matter.

Nope...I understand your position completely.

But you say these systems allow being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out. GEEZ--- you obviously do not understand that onboard treated waste is forbidden to be dumped in NDZ, treated or untreated. The law does not allow you to avoid the inconvenience of a pump out if in a NDZ.

Climb down off your soapbox...everyone does understand that...it's you who are missing the point. No one is advocating using a treatment device in a NDZ. But if a boat has ONLY a holding tank, ALL toilet waste has go into it even in waters where the discharge of treated waste is legal. A treatment device doesn't REPLACE a holding tank, it just makes it unnecessary to use it EXCEPT when in a NDZ.

Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Boat-Odors/dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
 
HeadMistress said:
I doubt Peggy misunderstands my position in this matter.

Nope...I understand your position completely.

But you say these systems allow being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out. GEEZ--- you obviously do not understand that onboard treated waste is forbidden to be dumped in NDZ, treated or untreated. The law does not allow you to avoid the inconvenience of a pump out if in a NDZ.

Climb down off your soapbox...everyone does understand that...it's you who are missing the point. No one is advocating using a treatment device in a NDZ. But if a boat has ONLY a holding tank, ALL toilet waste has go into it even in waters where the discharge of treated waste is legal. A treatment device doesn't REPLACE a holding tank, it just makes it unnecessary to use it EXCEPT when in a NDZ.

Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Boat-Odors/dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
Click to expand...



No soapbox here. You provide your guru guidance in this forum so neophytes should not be reading responses claiming an advantage of having onboard processing allows " Being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out." :banghead:
 
But it can be an advantage...so the point really is?

It is a huge advantage for me.....
 
foggysail said:
But you say these systems allow being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out. GEEZ--- you obviously do not understand that onboard treated waste is forbidden to be dumped in NDZ, treated or untreated. The law does not allow you to avoid the inconvenience of a pump out if in a NDZ.

So if you are one of the apparent many who prefer treating waste prior to discharge while in a zone that permits waste discharge that is just fine. I am not inclined to do so.
Click to expand...

Sorry foggy, I guess I didn't understand that you were referring exclusively to NDZs. Currently, the waters in which I boat are not a NDZ and there are no US waters in my area where non-treated waste can be discharge. It was in that setting where I described the potential advantages of using a waste treatment system. I perfectly understand that treated waste cannot be discharged in a NDZ.

So, just to be clear. I cannot discharge untreated waste in my waters. I can discharge treated waste in my waters. For that reason, there are some advantages to having a treatment system. I just don't have one.
 
foggysail said:
No soapbox here. You provide your guru guidance in this forum so neophytes should not be reading responses claiming an advantage of having onboard processing allows " Being able to avoid the inconvenience of having a holding tank pumped out." :banghead:
Click to expand...

Even if that is completely accurate anywhere except an NDZ.
 
HeadMistress said:
Underwater outlet makes me nervous;

Why should a holding tank discharge thru-hull below waterline make you any more nervous than a a below-waterline flush water inlet thru-hull for a sea water toilet or a direct overboard discharge thru-hull for a toilet (they're always below waterline)??? Or a below-waterline inlet for a HVAC pump, or a below waterline thru-hull for a sea water cooled engine...below waterline thru-hull for a sea water washdown pump...???
Peggie
http://www.amazon.com/New-Get-Rid-Boat-Odors/dp/1892399784/
"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't completely understand it yourself." --Albert Einstein
Click to expand...

Ours is not...neither were two boats prior. i.e. "... direct overboard discharge thru-hull for a toilet (they're always below waterline)???"
 
Your toilets were plumbed to spew every flush out the side of the boat above waterline for all to see and smell??? You couldn't have been very popular with the people around you in any anchorage outside US waters! I can't ever recall seeing or even hearing of one that did. Tanks yes...sinks, yes...but not toilets. Yuk!

In fact, once upon a time before boats became floating condos, safety standards called for putting both intake and discharge thru-hulls in readily accessible locations that allowed the seacocks (which wouldn't be necessary on above-waterline thru-hulls) to be kept closed except when the toilet was in use. Boat builders began ignoring that when decor started trumping safety.
 
dhays said:
Sorry foggy, I guess I didn't understand that you were referring exclusively to NDZs. Currently, the waters in which I boat are not a NDZ and there are no US waters in my area where non-treated waste can be discharge. It was in that setting where I described the potential advantages of using a waste treatment system. I perfectly understand that treated waste cannot be discharged in a NDZ.

So, just to be clear. I cannot discharge untreated waste in my waters. I can discharge treated waste in my waters. For that reason, there are some advantages to having a treatment system. I just don't have one.
Click to expand...



:flowers:
 
bglad said:
I have come across this system in a couple of boats:

http://raritaneng.com/pdf_files/hold_n_treat/holdntreat.pdf

Permits using your holding tank to buffer your discharges so you are not waiting between flushes. Would seem to cover your circumstance pretty well.
Click to expand...

That is the exact system we have, and it works great!

Both heads drain to the 15 gallon holding tank.

The Hold N Treat controller senses the level in the holding tank and when it gets above the low level sensor it triggers flush cycle(s) until the tank level drops. (I have my low level sensor set at just over one "cycle", so the tank pretty much completely empties.

This allows two heads with one treatment system, and no flush delay.

If I am not in a place that I am comfortable discharging my treated waste then I turn the key to "no discharge" and the 15 gallon tank gives me about a day's holding with two people on board.
 
I also have the hold'n'treat set up downstream of a holding tank. Two vacuflush heads go to the holding tank which is 110 USG in my case. From the holding tank there are three separate outlets, no y-valves. One is for a dockside pump out, one goes to the hold'n'treat and one pumps overboard.

Overall system design is good, but the salt water tank on the hold'n'treat system is a PITA. I don't use the hold'n'treat much for two reasons. One is that it needs the mod for the salt tank that ksanders did. I'll have to find the thread that Kevin described it, and put that task on my list. Second is that local regs don't recognise its effectiveness, and do not differentiate whether your discharge is raw or treated in terms of distance limits. So installing it was a waste of money for a Queensland based boat.

Compounding that problem in Queensland is that it is not that common for marinas to have a pump out facility. The requirement for sewerage facilities in their lease is typically deemed satisfied by some on-shore toilets, a bad loophole in my view.

Recently when in the Whitsunday area of the Great Barrier Reef, where there are many charter companies and a large charter fleet, the radio messages from base to returning vessels requesting ETA's were reminding folks to pump out their holding tanks before tying up to the dock. No dock pumpouts for servicing turnaround, even for commercial fleet operations!
 
Insequent said:
Overall system design is good, but the salt water tank on the hold'n'treat system is a PITA. I don't use the hold'n'treat much for two reasons. One is that it needs the mod for the salt tank that ksanders did. I'll have to find the thread that Kevin described it, and put that task on my list.
Click to expand...

I just completed our second boating season with our salt tank modification, with zero issues.

The concept is easy. Replace the Raritan supplied float valve, which is proven itself to be unreliable.

In its place install a float switch, which controls a solenoid valve.

That way you are not relying on a float valve to turn off the water, which is difficult without having a long arm for leverage (like in a toilet). The float valve is just a switch, which is much easier to do in a tight space.
 
Thanks Kevin. I really ought to do it, so its now on the list. I gain no advantages in terms of where I can discharge, but there are brownie points involved in using it (unfortunate term in this context). Since I have it, I might as well use it. My memory had failed me, I thought it was more complicated!
 
Last edited:
Insequent said:
Thanks Kevin. I really ought to do it, so its now on the list. I gain no advantages in terms of where I can discharge, but there are brownie points involved in using it (unfortunate term in this context). Since I have it, I might as well use it. My memory had failed me, I thought it was more complicated!
Click to expand...
I did the exact same mod with a year and a half on it, no issues also.

Hard to believe Raritan hasn't come around.

I also had to install new electrode plates this spring.

Amazing the difference. The ones that came with the unit must have been inferior as they never seemed tov work well...but the new ones seem to work as advertised. Wish I could have compiled more data or whatever it would have taken to get a free set of plates for all the aggravation the system caused the first year between the plates and the salt tank before it's mod.
 
My electroscan unit with hold'n'treat addition tested out quite well today. So I'm yet to make the mod. I have the float switch but yet to buy the solenoid valve, so ran it with the Raritan unit on the salt tank. It worked fine, so I think I'll just continue to run it until it starts causing problems.

One question, perhaps Kevin or Scott can advise as they are running a similar set-up. How often do you add salt to the 4 gallon salt tank, and how much salt do you add each time?
 
Last year as I described, my original electrodes never seemed to work well...

One reason I bad mouthed Raritan for designing a system that couldn't work less than a mile from an inlet.

So I was adding over 10 pounds of salt a week.

This spring and summer....I have only added 15 pounds (or a about a 3 gallon bucket half full of salt) all summer, a bit at a time as I can't get over how little it is using.

Last year I got the red low salt warning all the time even with the high salt usage. This year I haven't gotten even one in 5 months.

The salt tank I think says to add 10 pounds or about a gallon milk jug full when out of salt...so it is really a guessing game on how much depending if any is already in there...but certainly the tank could hold more than 10 pounds. Too much and it will overflow a tad but it does have a nice low overflow outlet so it doesn't get near the rim.

If anyone doesn't feel like they want to spend $400 on a simple plastic bucket with a small pump installed and a barely working overflow switch....one of a larger size could be made easily. Kevin already figured out the float switch issue and 2 units have worked flawlessly for well over a year each.
 
Last edited:
HeadMistress said:
Too much salt can be as damaging to the system as too little...it might be helpful if you read the instructions.

If your toilet uses pressurized fresh water you need the 4 gallon that uses rock salt 4 gallon salt feed tank owners manual

If you have a sea water toilet you need the 2 gallon tank that you fill with a brine solution 2 gallon salt feed tank owners manual[/QUOTE

My actions for the first year were in 100 percent compliance from the engineers at Rartian.

They had no clue, so they just kept saying everything was normal.

So I added the salt tank and even then the Electroscan kept adding more salt than it should have needed because the plates must have been giving a false reading to the control box.

The 2 gallon setup I consider useless if you are in and out of fresh/salt water regularly...the engineers seemed to agree.

It wasn't until the plates failed and were replaced that anything seemed normal.

And even then the engineers couldn't fix the overflow valve so I went with Kevin's advice and the system now works as advertised.

I do read manuals...better than most. I recited many parts from memory to the technicians and engineers at Raritan. The engineers were so perplexed, they wanted to make a house call to see the whole setup. Everything from start to finish on that or any other expensive project I undertake is with full reading, peer questioning and factory support.

I did stuff like this for a living for many years....I have a pretty good rep about my marine tech work....comes from my previous career of a lot more demanding and dangerous job.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hey Peggie


I pretty much understand what effect ElectroSan (Scan) has-affect-on/does to sanitize human solid excrement.


My Question: What does activating the ES do to urine only? In other words - if urination only (exclusively) is what the toilet with ES system is used for... does the ES have positive actions when used in that case too. Isn't healthy person urine pretty much sanitary of it's own accord?


Oh so many questions! - Thanks for all your help - Art
 
Art said:
Hey Peggie
I pretty much understand what effect ElectroSan (Scan) has-affect-on/does to sanitize human solid excrement.

My Question: What does activating the ES do to urine only? In other words - if urination only (exclusively) is what the toilet with ES system is used for... does the ES have positive actions when used in that case too. Isn't healthy person urine pretty much sanitary of it's own accord?
Click to expand...

The LectraSan/ElectroSan and PurSan don't just treat and discharge each individual flush...when a flush enters the first chamber it pushes an equal amount into the second chamber....pushing the same amount overboard. Everything in both chambers is treated each time. So each flush is treated at least three times. Unless solid waste is never flushed, the odds are that there will never be just urine only going through it. However, even if there were, new studies have confirmed that urine is NOT sterile after all.

Confirmed: Urine Is Not Sterile

The LS/ES/PS aren't selective in the bacteria and virii they kill, so whatever is in urine gets killed as well.
 
HeadMistress said:
The LectraSan/ElectroSan and PurSan don't just treat and discharge each individual flush...when a flush enters the first chamber it pushes an equal amount into the second chamber....pushing the same amount overboard. Everything in both chambers is treated each time. So each flush is treated at least three times. Unless solid waste is never flushed, the odds are that there will never be just urine only going through it. However, even if there were, new studies have confirmed that urine is NOT sterile after all.

Confirmed: Urine Is Not Sterile

The LS/ES/PS aren't selective in the bacteria and virii they kill, so whatever is in urine gets killed as well.
Click to expand...

Peggie - Well... matter o' fact - for eight years now... there is one boat that never allows #2 and only allows #1 in one of its two heads... that head is the one with ElectroSan... That's how our boat operates. The other head is with holding tank access only and is used for both #1 and #2. So, off our boat, #2 is always pumped out for shore treatment. Hopefully landing into treatment plants that actually take care of business without overflows. :D
 
psneeld said:
Last year as I described, my original electrodes never seemed to work well...

One reason I bad mouthed Raritan for designing a system that couldn't work less than a mile from an inlet.

So I was adding over 10 pounds of salt a week.

This spring and summer....I have only added 15 pounds (or a about a 3 gallon bucket half full of salt) all summer, a bit at a time as I can't get over how little it is using.

Last year I got the red low salt warning all the time even with the high salt usage. This year I haven't gotten even one in 5 months.

The salt tank I think says to add 10 pounds or about a gallon milk jug full when out of salt...so it is really a guessing game on how much depending if any is already in there...but certainly the tank could hold more than 10 pounds. Too much and it will overflow a tad but it does have a nice low overflow outlet so it doesn't get near the rim.

If anyone doesn't feel like they want to spend $400 on a simple plastic bucket with a small pump installed and a barely working overflow switch....one of a larger size could be made easily. Kevin already figured out the float switch issue and 2 units have worked flawlessly for well over a year each.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the numbers on salt use. I did re-read the manual after Peggie's jolt, although think its not particularly good. However, I will now follow the 'adjust salt solution' procedure as it might minimise salt use and avoid any issues from having too much salt in the electro-scan unit itself. I suspect this adjustment has never been done before on my boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Anyone else out there with a MT 36 Sundeck?
Replies
2
Views
542
DBG8492
D
C
Fuel Tank Mystery
Replies
17
Views
1K
Greg QS
Greg QS
UrsusMaritimus
Abandoning Seacocks/Through Hulls
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Steve DAntonio
Steve DAntonio
R
Holding tank vent smell and aeration
2 3
Replies
75
Views
6K
Comodave
Comodave
M
Holding Tank Deck Pumpout Location
Replies
10
Views
1K
Moonfish
Moonfish

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom