Recommended well water setup

[Reach4]

Let me add another twist in that my IRB testing just showed +

No big deal. Super common. Most people don't even bother testing for it. Not disease causing. I would sanitize my plumbing and well maybe once per year or so.

I like the procedure in http://www.moravecwaterwells.com/index.php/maintainance/disinfection-and-testing

So now it seems wise to use chlorine and retention tank instead of iron filtering, correct?

I don't think so.

 

[davidwater]

I should of said IRB and SRB. I hate the smell. That's what promoted me to test.

 

[Sponsor]

 

[Reach4]

I should of said IRB and SRB. I hate the smell. That's what promoted me to test.

Being negative, when you have iron symptoms and sulfur symptoms, would have been a surprise.

 

[Mikey]

So now it seems wise to use chlorine and retention tank instead of iron filtering, correct?

That would be my (non-professional) opinion. I love chlorine. It solves many problems, and it's cheap. The major downside is the additional space required (solution tank and large retention tank usually used), and it's one more thing to monitor. A carbon filter removes the residual chlorine after it does it's job, so your water doesn't taste like restaurant water. You can also put the carbon filter and softener in bypass once a year or so and circulate the chlorinated water throughout the house to sterilize the plumbing.

 

[davidwater]

I think that is just what makes the most sense right now. pump > CSV > storaage tank > chlorine pellets > retention tank > Centaur backflow filter > WS > house

I don't see the upside of Katalox filter over chlorine when I still have the bacteria and potential smell.

 

[Bannerman]

Mikey said:

pump->chlorine injection->"swirly" tank (http://www.apwinc.com/retention_tank.html)
->retention tank (may no longer be needed, but I've got it)->bladder tank->carbon filter->softener.

Anytime a bladder tank (pressure tank) is located after a treatment device, there is the likelihood of water flowing in reverse through the treatment device, at least until the pump kicks-in.

I was a little concerned about putting the pressure switch after the 3 (or maybe 2) tanks, but there's nothing to dramatically affect the pump pressure compared to switch pressure

Any iron will start to be oxidized from the point of chlorine injection - onward. The iron will start to precipitate out and can potentially plug the lines before the pressure switch.
As tank bladders often will not tolerate constant exposure to chlorine too well, you may want to obtain the tank manufacturer's direction prior to placing the chlorinator ahead of the pressure tank.

 

[davidwater]

Mikey,
I don't understand. Are you just stating for my info or are you suggesting I'm doing that?

the "storage tank" has the bladder (for now) and just after the cycle stop valve and from what I understand at "the beginning" of the line. Is this wrong?

Can I remove the bladder from the tank and use it as a tank for chlorine injection and retention..after.. the storage tank?? Has anyone converted a bladder tank to an injection tank?

As far as the pressure switch: I should of labeled more clearly...
pump > CSV > pressure switch > storaage tank...

Thanks for you input. I'm starting to feel 1/2 educated.

 

[davidwater]

When I run Gary's calculator for sizing a WS using different usages it seems that the 2.0 cuft unit at 3 lbs / ft is as efficient as it gets at around 4260 grains of capacity / lb of salt. Does this seem like a legit assessment?

Why can't I just get a 2.0 cuft unit, load it to 3 lbs/ft and then just regenerate it based on gallons used and my grains needed ( for my hardness, Fe, Mn) with confirmation testing towards the end of the cycle?

Of course assuming the 2.0 cuft exceeds my SFR needed for my house, which it does.

 

[Bannerman]

...it seems that the 2.0 cuft unit at 3 lbs / ft is as efficient as it gets at around 4260 grains of capacity / lb of salt. Does this seem like a legit assessment?

While your assessment is correct, it is generally advisable to not go below 6 lbs/cuft as water quality can suffer.

As the salt setting decreases, then regeneration water usage will increase as regeneration will need to be more frequent. Each regeneration cycle will utilize virtually the same amount of water, whether at 3 lbs/cuft or 15 lbs/cuft. A 6 or 8 pound salt setting is a reasonable compromise between salt efficiency and not needing to regenerate too frequently.

While a softener may be utilized to remove iron and manganese, it is not an efficient method. The softener will require frequent regenerations using a higher salt setting than would be required if the iron/manganese was not being removed. In addition, frequent additional manual cleanings using an acid based cleaner would be required.

At 2 ppm, you have a fair amount of iron, thereby justifying a dedicated iron reduction system.

 

[Reach4]

Why can't I just get a 2.0 cuft unit, load it to 3 lbs/ft and then just regenerate it based on gallons used and my grains needed ( for my hardness, Fe, Mn) with confirmation testing towards the end of the cycle?

In reply #25 you identified a system you might have been saying that you planned to do. While it seems odd to me, at least you should not have to worry about iron and manganese in your water by the time that the water hits the softener. I don't know if there will be much residual chlorine, however.

 

[davidwater]

In reply #25 you identified a system you might have been saying that you planned to do. While it seems odd to me, at least you should not have to worry about iron and manganese in your water by the time that the water hits the softener. I don't know if there will be much residual chlorine, however.

What seems odd? Using chlorine and not a Fe filter? But correct this is the system I'm planning to install. Currently it is just the pump and storage tank with nothing else. From what I have read using chlorine is an efficient way to get rid of Fe, S and the smell while killing all bugs no matter what they are. Is this not correct?

 

[davidwater]

How do I size the carbon filter after the chlorine?

 

[Reach4]

What seems odd?

Using Centaur Carbon for chlorine removal. My iron+sulfur filter uses Centaur Carbon catalytic carbon. I don't know how Centaur Carbon works for chlorine removal. It would be interesting to find out. I know it costs more than coconut activated carbon. Maybe the media life would be twice as long as coconut, so maybe you have something there. Tell us what you learn.

I suggest you get some low range chlorine strips to test the chlorine levels before and after the Centaur Carbon.

 

[davidwater]

I thought that I read that was what Gary recommended to remove chlorine but I may be mistaken.

 

[Bannerman]

Granular activated carbon (GAC) is commonly utilized to remove chlorine whereas more expensive catalytic carbon media (ie: Centaur) is utilized where tougher to remove Chlorimines (Chlorine & Ammonia) are used for disinfection.

In sizing the carbon filter, chlorine has been found to be effectively removed/substantially reduced even when the specified flow rate for GAC is greatly exceeded. Carbon is also effective in absorbing many other contaminants but will require adequate contact time. When reduction of other contaminants is required, to ensure effectiveness, the specified flow rate should not be exceeded.

If your main concern is chlorine, most households find 1.5 cuft to be suitable. Often, the carbon filter is sized identical to the softener so the two tanks are the same (neater appearance).

Here is a listing of flow and backwash rates for various media and tank sizes: http://www.purewaterproducts.com/articles/backwash-chart

 

[davidwater]

So if I want to come close to 13 gpm SFR is seems that the carbon filter is going to be the choke point of a typical setup.

 

[Bannerman]

By referring to 'choke point', you seem to be suggesting a physical restriction to the flow rate.

The specified flow rate for each media, is the amount of flow that quantity of media is able to support while effectively filtering out whatever contaminants the media is intended to remove. It is not a physical restriction but is an indication of the flow rate in which the media may no longer be fully effective.

If your water requirements are higher than the media will support, assuming your water system is capable of delivering that higher flow rate, then it is likely that some of the contaminants the filter is expected to remove, will pass through the filter and be present downstream at each plumbing fixture. As the flow rate is further exceeded, more of the contaminants will pass through.

Please keep in mind the backwash rate required by most filter media, is often greater than the service flow supported. Your well, pump and plumbing setup will need to constantly deliver the flow required to backwash the filter, for the entire backwash cycle.

What makes you think you require 13 gpm downstream of the filter & softener? If only because you're considering a 2 cuft softener, that is the highest flow rate that amount of resin will be able to supply 0 gpg. That doesn't signify that is the SFR you will actually need or will use.

Most residential applications usually involve modest flow rates (<6 gpm) with a higher than usual demand needed on occasion. Backwash filters are typically sized to satisfy the usual household needs, often due to water supply required to backwash the media. If a reduced amount of whatever contaminant bleeds through during an occasional higher than usual demand, it is usually not an issue.

 

[davidwater]

Correct I meant a functional "choke point" not physical. Yes I spent some time on your tables and that is when I realized that the carbon filter will be functionally the slowest point. My pump can deliver > 15 gpm so the backwash is not the restriction at the typical sizes.

I'm currently remodeling and would like to have several larger output shower heads...but maybe not without chlorine in the water. I was hoping for a 10 -13 gpm max SRF if I planned well. Obviously I can get by on less.

I just want to understand where the slow point is so I can decided what kind of money I want to spend on it.

Thanks for your help and your table / site was helpful.

 

[davidwater]

I was told today that in a WS of 10" or smaller don't need gravel in the bottom. Just the larger ones to prevent channels. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[davidwater]

That would be my (non-professional) opinion. I love chlorine. It solves many problems, and it's cheap. The major downside is the additional space required (solution tank and large retention tank usually used), and it's one more thing to monitor. A carbon filter removes the residual chlorine after it does it's job, so your water doesn't taste like restaurant water. You can also put the carbon filter and softener in bypass once a year or so and circulate the chlorinated water throughout the house to sterilize the plumbing.

What size of carbon filter are you using?