Final Water Softening Report 20130403

Water Softening Alternatives Analysis
Prepared for:
The City of Ferndale Public Works

Ferndale, Washington
Prepared by
April 3, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... E-1
1. Introduction and Purpose ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1
1.2 Goals and Objectives .............................................................................................................. 1
2. Background ................................................................................................................ 2
2.1 Hard Water General Characteristics....................................................................................... 2
3. Water Characteristics ................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Water Rights, Capacity, and Demand ..................................................................................... 3
3.2 Water Chemistry Characteristics ............................................................................................ 7
3.3 Discussion of Water Chemistry Characteristics .................................................................... 14
4. Ion Exchange with Sodium as Regenerant ................................................................. 17
4.1 General Process Description................................................................................................. 17
4.2 Benefits and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange with Sodium as Regenerant.......................... 18
4.3 Implementation .................................................................................................................... 19
5. Ion Exchange with Acid as Regenerant ...................................................................... 20
5.2 Process Description for Ferndale System ............................................................................. 21
5.3 Benefits and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange with Acid as Regenerant ............................... 22
5.4 Implementation of Ion Exchange with Acid as Regenerant ................................................. 23
6. Nanofiltration .......................................................................................................... 24
6.2 Process Description for the Ferndale System....................................................................... 25
6.3 Benefits of nanofiltration water treatment ......................................................................... 26
6.4 Implementation of Nanofiltration ........................................................................................ 27
7. Lime Softening ......................................................................................................... 28
7.1 General ................................................................................................................................. 28
7.2 Lime Softening Costs ............................................................................................................ 28
8. Disinfection Alternatives .......................................................................................... 29
8.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 29
9. Cost Estimates .......................................................................................................... 30
10. Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 34
11. Recommendations ................................................................................................... 35
12. References ............................................................................................................... 36
Tables
Table 1. Classification of hardness levels. ................................................................................................2
Table 2. Water usage – existing and projected, assuming 3 percent annual growth ..............................4
Table 3. Hardness and softening related parameters. .............................................................................8
Table 4. Major TDS components of groundwater at different points in time........................................10
Table 5. Comparison of hardness and corrosion potential characteristics ............................................12
Table 6. Water chemistry testing results for December 21, 2012. ........................................................13
Table 7. Disinfectants and DBPs in 12/21/2012 finished water. ............................................................14
Table 8. Selectivity coefficients for a typical cation/anion exchange resins. .........................................18
Table 9. Benefits and disadvantages of Ion Exchange with sodium as regenerant. ..............................18
Table 10. Benefits and disadvantages of Ion Exchange with acid as regenerant...................................22
Table 11. Benefits and disadvantages of full deionization (cation and anion exchange). .....................22
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table 12. Potential Rejection Rates for Nanofiltration ..........................................................................24

Table 13. Benefits and disadvantages of nanofiltration.........................................................................26
Table 14. Factors that may influence the choice of the disinfection method .......................................29
Table 15. Summary of cost estimates. ...................................................................................................30
Table 16. Estimated Costs for IEX with Sodium Regeneration ...............................................................31
Table 17. Estimated Costs for IEX with Acid Regeneration ....................................................................32
Table 18. Estimated Costs for Nanofiltration System ............................................................................33
Figures
Figure 1. Douglas Well water levels compared to average daily pumping rate. ......................................5
Figure 2. Shop Well water levels compared to average daily pumping rate. ..........................................6
Figure 3. Illustration of major TDS components of the Douglas Well at different points in time .........10
Figure 4. Illustration of major TDS components of the Shop Well at different points in time ..............11
Figure 5. Graphic of softening ion exchange resin and photos of dry and wet resin beads. .................17
Figure 6. Illustrations of Ion Exchange using acid as a regenerant ........................................................20
ii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CaCO3 calcium carbonate

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DBP disinfection byproduct
DO dissolved oxygen
Ecology Washington State Department of Ecology
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERU equivalent residential unit
GPM gallons per minute
HAA haloacetic acids
IEX ion exchange
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
mg/L milligrams per liter
µg/L micrograms per liter
MGD million gallons per day
ND not detected
NF nanofiltration
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
O&M operations and maintenance
ORP oxidation-reduction potential
PSI pound per square inch (pressure)
RO reverse osmosis
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
TDS total dissolved solids
THM total trihalomethane
TOC total organic carbon
USGS United States Geologic Survey
WDOH Washington State Department of Health
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Executive Summary
The City of Ferndale, in December 2011, converted from using the Nooksack River to groundwater
for its public water supply. The water supplied to the citizens of Ferndale from the groundwater
source is in compliance with Maximum Contaminant Levels for all primary contaminants. However,
since being put into service the well water has changed from being “moderately hard” to “hard,”
which is a nuisance and an aesthetic issue. Hardness was previously only about 70 mg/L (Nooksack
River as the source).
The purpose of this evaluation is to address the citizens’ concerns about hardness. The primary
objective of this report is to identify and evaluate feasible options for softening the water (i.e.,
reducing hardness). The goal is to identify and implement a water softening alternative that will
result in a water supply that has an acceptable level of hardness (the goal is nominally 70 mg/L
CaCO3) and meets all water quality standards. This evaluation examines the benefits and
disadvantages of several potential water softening alternatives. The effectiveness of any softening
system is directly affected by the water chemistry and flow requirements of the water supply.
Taste is also an issue – taste is affected by mineral concentrations and by disinfection.
Treatability of the groundwater – chemical testing shows that the water chemistry is amenable to
the softening methods evaluated.
Six alternatives were considered and are listed below. The last three listed alternatives were
rejected as infeasible due to high cost. The first three were evaluated in detail.
 Ion Exchange (IEX) (sodium regenerant) [the process most typically used]
 Ion Exchange (IEX) (mineral acid regenerant)
 Nanofiltration (NF)
 Lime softening (a common process for larger water systems)
 High rate solids contact clarifiers (a variant of lime softening)
 Blending (with a soft water source)
The design flow used for this evaluation (1550 GPM) meets Peak Day Demand for 10 years of 3%
annual population growth (through 2023) or Peak Month Demand for 17 years (through 2030).
Ion exchange (IEX) is a feasible alternative for softening. The typical method of regenerating IEX
resin with sodium is unacceptable, because it increases sodium and total dissolved solids (TDS)
concentration in the water. Using mineral acid (H+) for regeneration is feasible because it adds no
sodium and the groundwater is alkaline enough to buffer the acid added by treatment.
Nanofiltration (or low pressure reverse osmosis) is a feasible alternative for softening. NF is identical
to reverse osmosis (RO), except that it does not remove as much sodium, chloride, or other small
molecules. However, NF wastes less water and uses much less power than high pressure RO. A three
stage NF can recover up to 90 percent of the feedwater stream, which makes it a feasible choice,
though more costly to build and operate than a one or two stage system.
E-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Both IEX and NF will effectively soften the water. For either of these alternatives, about half of the
incoming well water would be softened. The other half would bypass softening and be treated only
for manganese. These two flow streams would then be combined, resulting in a hardness of about
70 mg/L. The advantages of IEX and NF are compared in the table below.
The principal differences between the two methods are:
 NF provides for removal of many other parameters in addition to hardness

 NF uses considerably more power
 IEX uses substantially more acid
IEX and NF System Advantages Comparison

Advantages of IEX with Acid as regenerant Advantages of NF
Removes 95%-100% of hardness (including Removes 85%-90% of hardness (including

manganese). manganese). Alkalinity loss doesn’t affect WWTP.
Reduces TDS by about 15%, which improves Reduces TDS by about 40% overall, which
taste. improves taste.
Less chlorine use (about 30% less), which Less chlorine use (about 40% less) and removes
reduces DBPs by 10-20% and improves taste. DBP precursors, which reduces DBPs by 20-50%
and improves taste.
System fouling minimal (acid regeneration Does not require handling large amounts of
removes iron and manganese). strong acid.
Low electricity consumption. Reduces arsenic concentration.
The estimated capital costs are shown below. NF is the more costly alternative but addresses other
water quality concerns such as TDS, chloride, DBPs, and arsenic, any of which could become a
compliance issue in the future.
Estimated Total Capital Costs for IEX and NF

Softening Method Capital Cost for 2 Units
IEX (acid regenerant) $1.0M to $1.2M
Nanofiltration $1.6M to $2.1M
E-2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The estimated O&M costs are shown below. These costs include primarily chemicals, power, minor
repairs, and funding replacement of resin or membranes. Costs for staff labor are not included
below.
Estimated Operations and Maintenance Costs for IEX and NF

Softening Method O&M Cost for 2 Units
IEX (acid regenerant) $70K to $90K
Nanofiltration $79K to $99K
Nanofiltration (NF) is the recommended softening system because it provides a good softening
system, the best overall treatment, the best improvement in taste, and can better address potential
future compliance issues.
E-3
CITY OF FERNDALE WATER SOFTENING ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
1. Introduction and Purpose

1.1 Introduction
The City of Ferndale converted to using groundwater for its public water supply in December 2011.
The City had used the Nooksack River as its source of drinking water since the 1970s. Prior to that,
the City used groundwater as its raw water source. The water supplied to the citizens of Ferndale
from the groundwater source is in compliance with Maximum Contaminant Levels for all primary
contaminants. The hardness of the groundwater source is an aesthetic concern and a nuisance to
many of the water users in the City. The purpose of this evaluation is to address the citizens’
concerns about hardness.
1.2 Goals and Objectives

The primary objective of this report is to identify and evaluate feasible options for softening the
water (i.e., reducing hardness). This evaluation attempts to examine fully the characteristics of the
groundwater and how those characteristics interact with existing and potential water treatment
methods. The goal is to identify and implement a water softening alternative that will result in a
water supply that has an acceptable level of hardness and meets all water quality standards. The
selected alternative should improve the overall quality of water supply; and should not cause any
unwanted side effects.
This evaluation examines the benefits and disadvantages of several potential water softening
alternatives. The effectiveness of any softening system is directly affected by the water chemistry
and flow requirements of the water supply. The issues and water characteristics considered in this
evaluation of softening treatment alternatives include:
 Water supply demand (existing and future)

 Water rights
 Well capacities
 Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration
 Chloride
 Sodium
 Arsenic
 Disinfection byproducts (DBPs)
 Corrosion (lead and copper)
 Space limitations for new equipment
 Capital costs
 Operation and maintenance costs
 Costs associated with future capacity expansions
1
2. Background
2.1 Hard Water General Characteristics
Hard water is high in dissolved minerals – mainly calcium and magnesium, but also other divalent
cations (i.e., with two positive charges) such as iron and manganese. As water moves through soil
and rock, it dissolves small amounts of these naturally occurring minerals and carries them into the
groundwater supply. Water is a strong solvent for calcium and magnesium, so if the minerals are
present in the aquifer’s soil, the water will be hard. The degree of hardness depends on the soil
chemistry, origin of the groundwater, and the hydrogeological history.
Hardness does not pose any health risks and is not regulated by state or federal agencies. In fact,
calcium and magnesium are essential nutrients. However, hard water can be a nuisance and an
aesthetic issue. Hard water used for laundering can make clothes look dingy and feel rough and
scratchy and require softening additives. Dishes and glasses may become spotted and a film may
build up on shower doors, bathtubs, sinks, dishwashers, and faucets. In addition, hard water can
cause a residue to build-up in pipes – this is particularly true for hot water pipes, hot water heaters,
and especially on-demand hot water systems.
Hardness is usually measured as the equivalent concentration of calcium carbonate (for example,
40 mg/L calcium is reported as 100 mg/L CaCO3). The actual impacts of a specific hardness
concentration depend upon the precise mixture of minerals dissolved in the water, together with
the water's pH and temperature. Therefore, a single-number scale does not adequately describe
hardness. However, the United States Geological Survey uses the following classifications for hard
and soft water:
Table 1. Classification of hardness levels.
Hardness in Hardness in Hardness in
Classification mg/L CaCO3 mmol/L grains
Soft 0 – 60 0 – 0.60 0.00 – 3.50
Moderately hard 61– 120 0.61 – 1.20 3.72 – 7.02
Hard 121 –180 1.21 – 1.80 7.07 – 10.53
Very hard ≥ 181 ≥ 1.81 ≥ 10.58
Adapted from: Briggs, J.C., and Ficke, J.F., 1977, Quality of Rivers of the United States, 1975 Water
Year -- Based on the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN): U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 78-200, 436 p.
2
3. Water Characteristics
3.1 Water Rights, Capacity, and Demand
To evaluate potential softening systems, it is first necessary to determine the most appropriate
design flows. This includes (1) flow based on anticipated demand and water rights for the design
period (e.g., 20 years), (2) the percentage of flow to be diverted to softening treatment, and
(3) consideration of future demand and water rights.
Water Rights. Water rights place limits on two different withdrawal rates. The City has the right to
withdraw a maximum 2,870 GPM (4.13 MGD) instantaneously and a maximum of 2,055 acre-feet
(1.872 MGD) per year. The Shop Well has the more limited water rights of the two source wells:
870 GPM instantaneous and 440 acre-feet (0.39 MGD) per year. The volume pumped from the
Shop Well exceeded its annual water rights limit during 2012 because operation of the Douglas
Well was kept to a minimum because it had harder water.
The Douglas Well showed a greater increase in hardness and TDS (mainly chloride and sodium in
addition to hardness) as a result of well drawdown than did the Shop Well. Based on the results of
the first year of operation, it may be the case that the pumping rate from the Douglas Well will
have to kept at or below a certain pumping rate to prevent unacceptable increases in hardness
and TDS in the pumped water. Future increases in the rate of groundwater withdrawal might
better be met by increasing the capacity of the Shop Well or adding another well at a higher
elevation site.
Existing Treatment Capacity. The current WDOH approved capacity of the manganese treatment
system (two greensand filters in parallel configuration) is 2170 GPM (3.12 MGD). This treatment
system has been effective at removing manganese, which would otherwise be well above the
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level. It also removes the trace amounts of iron present, but
little else. The manganese treatment system has enough flow capacity to meet water demands
until 2030 or later.
Water Demand. Table 2 shows the existing and projected water demand (assuming 3 percent
annual growth). Note that the volume pumped from the wells is 3-5 percent higher than the
demand due to water lost during the greensand filters backwashing process. The demands shown
in Table 2 include the distribution system leakage rate, which is relatively low at only 5 percent or
less. The existing and future peak day demands are well below the instantaneous water rights
limit. The capacity of the greensand filters is more than adequate for the existing demand. The
limitation on annual withdrawal quantity would potentially be an issue circa 2032. The 2012
population and number of connections are 11,080 and 5099, respectively. The demand from the
buildout population of 25,000 could exceed the annual water right limit. Therefore, treatment
processes that waste large amounts of water may not be preferable unless more water rights can
be obtained.
The design flow used for this evaluation is:
Maximum Daily Flow = 1550 GPM
3
This is sufficient to meet Peak Day Demand through 2023 and Peak Month Demand through 2030.
Table 2. Water usage – existing and projected, assuming 3 percent annual growth
(quantity discharged to the distribution system)
DEMAND TYPE UNITS YEAR
2012 2022 2032

Average Annual Demand MGD 0.95 1.27 1.71
Peak Month Demand MGD 1.33 1.79 2.40
Peak Day Demand MGD 1.62 2.18 2.93
Average Annual Demand GPM 660 880 1,190
Peak Month Demand GPM 920 1,240 1,670
Peak Day Demand GPM 1,130 1,510 2,030
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the groundwater level drawdown compared to average daily pumping
rate for, respectively, the Douglas Well and the Shop Well. Both wells were drawn down in 2012
due to pumping. Water levels in both wells recovered to a certain extent when pumping rates
decreased in the fall. It is important to note that increased drawdown decreases the water level
and water pressure around the well. This causes water to flow into the well from downgradient
(i.e., against the natural flow of groundwater) and from deeper down in the aquifer.
Well drawdown has resulted in increased salinity (and hardness) for the two Ferndale wells.
However, the effect on the Douglas Well has been greater as will be discussed in the next section.
It should be noted that the Douglas Well screened intake is located at an elevation 75 feet lower
than the Shop Well screened intake. Because salinity often increases with depth, the disparity
between the two wells is not atypical.
4
110 800
700
100
600
Average Daily Flow (GPM)

90
500
Water Level (ft)
80 400
300
70
200
Water Level (pump OFF)
60
Water Level (pump ON) 100
Flow
50 0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 1. Douglas Well water levels compared to average daily pumping rate.
5
90 600
80
500
70
Average Daily Flow (GPM)

60 400
50
Water Level (ft)
300
40
30 200
20
Water Level (pump OFF)
100
10 Water Level (pump ON)
Flow
0 0
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Figure 2. Shop Well water levels compared to average daily pumping rate.
6
3.2 Water Chemistry Characteristics

Hardness. The water chemistry parameters directly related to hardness (and to softening) are
shown in Table 3. Manganese is included here even though it is a relatively small contributor to
hardness, because it can have a very negative affect (fouling) on treatment systems. Of greatest
concern is the increase in hardness subsequent to the wells being placed into production. The
Douglas Well hardness has increased from 116 mg/L to 206 mg/L since the well was put online.
The Shop Well hardness has also increased to a lesser extent from 92 mg/L to 125 mg/L. The
proportion of water withdrawn from the Shop Well was increased during the 2012 dry season,
from about 35 percent to about 65 percent of the total withdrawn. The resulting blended water
hardness was 160 mg/L.
It appears that the hardness levels for both of these wells leveled off at the end of summer when
the pumping rate decreased. The causes for the hardness increases and subsequent leveling off of
hardness are open to speculation. However, the increases are very likely due to entrainment of
saline (brackish) groundwater (relic seawater). Saline groundwater has higher levels of chloride,
sodium, bromide, calcium and magnesium.
Alkalinity. Alkalinity is an important water quality characteristic. Alkalinity is the capacity of water
for neutralizing an acid solution. For both wells, the alkalinity is essentially all in the form of
bicarbonate (HCO3-), excepting about 2 percent as carbonate (CO32-). It is the carbonate that forms
calcite scaling by combining with calcium. The alkalinity of both wells is substantially higher than
the hardness, which indicates that a portion of the alkalinity originates from sodium carbonate.
High alkalinity contributes to greater calcite scale deposition. High alkalinity is good for buffering
against pH changes. However, this buffering capacity is a disadvantage if the selected treatment
requires first lowering the pH.
7
Table 3. Hardness and softening related parameters.

Treated
Raw Water Water
Temp pH Alkalinity Hardness Manganese Manganese
mg/L mg/L
°C (CaCO3) (CaCO3) mg/L mg/L
12/18/2009 (Douglas -
Well) - -- -- 116 0.136 --
4/28/2010 -
(Shop Well) - -- 208 92 0.052 --
Jan 2012 (blended) 12 8.22 241 -- 0.143 0.012
Feb 2012 (blended) 12 8.26 266 -- 0.145 0.013
Mar 2012(blended) 12 8.27 279 137 0.141 0.014
Apr 2012 (blended) 12 8.19 275 154 0.169 0.017
May 2012 (blended) 12 8.24 274 154 0.170 0.016
Jun 2012 (blended) 12 8.17 275 158 0.174 0.017
Jul 2012 (blended) 12 8.19 275 164 0.169 0.017
Aug 2012 (blended) 12 8.19 271 162 0.166 0.018
12/21/2012 (blended) 12 8.20 240 160 0.155 0.011
12/21/2012 (Douglas
Well) 12 8.25 228 206 0.222 --
12/21/2012
(Shop Well) 12 8.25 244 125 0.102 --
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Table 4 shows TDS and conductivity and the major components of
TDS (other than hardness) in the well water at a few different points in time. The data prior to
2012 was obtained only after pumping the wells for a relatively short period of time (i.e., time
enough to adequately flush the wells for water quality testing and to calculate drawdown and
ultimate pumping capacity). Such tests will not always identify long-term trends from continuous
drawdown. Long-term trends can only be feasibly determined by putting a well into use.
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) have increased in both wells due to drawdown in 2012. The Douglas
Well (652 mg/L) is now above the Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. The Shop Well (454 mg/L) is near
the SMCL. Because the Douglas Well TDS is over the SMCL, it needs to be blended with the Shop
8
Well in order to supply water that is below the SMCL (assuming no treatment to reduce TDS). The
Shop Well to Douglas Well blend would need to be 4:1 using the values from Table 3. The TDS
increase during 2012 was due to chloride and sodium mostly, but also to increases in calcium,
magnesium, sulfate, and bicarbonate.
Scattered saline groundwater deposits are known to occur in the western Whatcom County (saline
water is high in TDS – salinity and TDS are almost the same thing). A phenomenon called connate
ascension occurs when a freshwater aquifer overlies saline connate water. Pumping may cause
the connate water to migrate upward and into the freshwater aquifer (see Figure A-1). This results
in a brackish, briny contamination similar to the effects of saltwater intrusion. Alternatively,
pumping may draw in saline water laterally from adjacent brackish groundwater. The extent of
the saline groundwater and the long-term effects of groundwater withdrawals and of increasing
groundwater withdrawals are unknown (see Figure A-2 for a map of the very scattered locations
of high chloride wells in Whatcom County).
Therefore, to ensure continued use of the groundwater into the future, any proposed treatment
should be considered carefully to allow for adaptation to changes in groundwater characteristics
over time (i.e., if chloride and sodium and thus TDS increase to unacceptable levels, will the
treatment system mitigate for this or can additional components be easily added to mitigate the
increase TDS).
Chloride. After one year of production pumping, the chloride concentration has increased by
about 150 mg/L in the Douglas Well (from 56 mg/L to 218 mg/L) and by about 50 mg/L in the Shop
Well (from 33 mg/L to 91 mg/L). Chloride is a good measure of the overall increase in salinity
(chloride flows freely with the groundwater). In this case, chloride is a direct indicator of the
amount of saline water (seawater in origin) in the groundwater. Seawater contains 19,000 mg/L
chloride, so 190 mg/L indicates a 1.0 percent seawater content. Therefore, the Douglas Well is
currently at about 1.0 percent seawater and the Shop Well is at about 0.5 percent seawater.
Seawater contains 6,400 mg/L of hardness. Thus, 1.0 percent of seawater could add 64 mg/L of
hardness.
Sodium. Sodium is relatively high in both wells (Douglas Well – 146 mg/L and Shop Well –
120 mg/L). Sodium in the Shop Well makes up a relatively larger proportion of the TDS than in the
Douglas Well. This is because the Shop Well has more sodium bicarbonate alkalinity than the
Douglas Well.
9
Table 4. Major TDS components of groundwater at different points in time.

Sample Total Diss.
Date Solids Conductivity Sodium Chloride Sulfate
mg/l µS/cm mg/l mg/l mg/l
SMCL* -- 500 -- -- 250 250
Douglas Well 2/23/1994 561 948 165 175 10
Douglas Well 3/22/2007 378 707 103 56 26
Douglas Well 12/22/2009 435 784 110 84 26
Douglas Well 12/21/2012 652 1162 146 218 26
Shop Well 8/4/1999 est. 360 637 110 51 22
Shop Well 3/22/2007 284 504 68 33 32
Shop Well 4/28/2010 331 598 85 40 29
Shop Well 12/21/2012 454 est. 800 120 91 40
Wells Blended 12/21/2012 500 909 132 145 35
* Secondary Maximum Contaminant Limit
800
Carbonate
DOUGLAS WELL
Magnesium
700
Calcium
Sulfate
Chloride
600
Sodium
Concentration (mg/L)
Total Diss. Solids

500
400
300
200
100
0
2/23/1994 3/22/2007 12/22/2009 12/21/2012
Figure 3. Illustration of major TDS components of the Douglas Well at different points in time
(calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate data not available for 1994 or 2007).
10
600
SHOP WELL
500
Carbonate
Magnesium
Concentration (mg/L)
400
Calcium
Sulfate
Chloride
300
Sodium
Total Diss. Solids
200
100
0
8/4/1999 3/22/2007 4/28/2010 12/21/2012
Figure 4. Illustration of major TDS components of the Shop Well at different points in time
(calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate data not available for 1994 or 2007).
Hardness and Corrosion Relationship. The table below compares the hardness and corrosion
potential characteristics of the previous surface water supply versus the existing groundwater
supply. The surface water supply (from the Nooksack River) had very low alkalinity, moderate
hardness (about 60-70 mg/L), and neutral pH. The Langelier Index indicates that it was very
corrosive to pipes. Aside from pipe longevity issues, the health concerns of corrosion are
dissolution of lead and copper into the drinking water from lead solder and copper pipes,
respectively. However, Ferndale’s drinking water from the previous surface water supply was in
compliance with lead and copper limits. The current well water supply has very high alkalinity and
relatively high hardness and pH. The Langelier Index indicates that calcium carbonate scaling will
occur. The softening goal for the drinking water is a hardness of 70 mg/L. In addition, the
softening method used would ideally result in water that is neither corrosive nor scaling (Langelier
Index between -0.5 and 0.5).
11
Table 5. Comparison of hardness and corrosion potential characteristics
Combined
Nooksack Combined Wells
River Wells Softened*
pH 7.2 8.2 7.9-8.2*
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3) 35 265 180 to 265
Hardness (mg/L CaCO3) 70 150 70
Calculated Langelier Index** -1.65 0.6 -0.2 to 0.5
* Value is dependent on softening method

** Values above and below zero indicate scaling and corrosion potentials,
respectively.
Full chemical testing Results. Table 6 gives the full chemical testing results (except for
disinfection) for samples collected on December 21, 2012 from the Douglas and Shop Wells and
from the blended well water (35 percent Douglas and 65 percent Shop) and the finished water
(treated and disinfected). Table 7 gives the results for disinfection chemicals and disinfection
byproducts (DBPs). These results are discussed in the following section.
12
Table 6. Water chemistry testing results for December 21, 2012.

Douglas Shop Blended Treated Method
Parameter Units MCL
Well Well Wells Water Limit
Flow GPM 450 750 1200 na
DO (field) mg/L 1.5 1.2 1.2 2.2
Chlorine (field) mg/L -- -- -- 1 4
Total Dissolved Solids mg/L 652 454 500 556 500 20
Conductivity µS/cm 1162 800 (est.) 909 940 10
Turbidity NTU 0.59 0.14 0.22 ND 0.1
Hardness mg CaCO3/L 206 125 160 152 3
Alkalinity mg CaCO3/L 228 244 240 237 1
Metals and other Cations
Aluminum mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.05 0.01
Barium mg/L 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.07 2.00 0.001
Boron mg/L 0.15 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.05
Calcium mg/L 43.6 25.9 33.3 31.8 0.5
Iron mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.3 0.05
Lead mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.015 0.0005
Magnesium mg/L 23.5 14.6 18.5 17.6 0.5
Manganese (Diss.) mg/L 0.222 0.102 0.155 ND 0.05 0.001
Manganese (Total) mg/L 0.226 0.106 0.151 0.011 0.05
Potassium mg/L 6.2 6.1 6.6 5.5 0.5
Sodium mg/L 146 120 132 130 1
Strontium mg/L 0.29 0.18 0.23 0.22 0.05
Ammonia mg/L N 0.1 0.18 0.14 0 0.03
Anions
Arsenic mg/L 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.01 0.001
Bromide mg/L 0.88 0.35 0.49 0.36 0.05
Bicarbonate mg HCO3/L 266 277 275 276 1.00
Carbonate mg CO3/L 5.8 10.2 9.2 6.9 1.00
Bicarbonate mg CaCO3/L 218 227 225 226 1.00
Carbonate mg CaCO3/L 9.6 17.3 15.4 11.5 1.00
Chloride mg/L 218 91 145 149 250 1
Fluoride mg/L 0.36 0.25 0.28 0.28 4/2 0.1
Iodide mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.1
Phosphates mg/L P 0.06 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.01
Sulfate mg/L 26 40 35 35 250 0.2
Silicon mg/L 19 23 21 22 0.05
Silica mg/L SiO2 22 20 21 20 0.05
Chlorine Demand mg/L 1.6 3 2 ND 0.1
Silt Density Index 0 0 0 0
ND Not detected
13
Table 7. Disinfectants and DBPs in 12/21/2012 finished water.
12/21/2012 1/15/2013
Finished Tap* Method
Parameter Units Water Water MCL Limit
Disinfectants**
Total Chlorine mg/L (as Cl2) ND 4 0.05
Free Chlorine Residual mg/L (as Cl2) ND 0.05
Total Bromine mg/L (as Cl2) 0.5 0.05
Free Bromine Residual mg/L (as Cl2) 0.5
Chloramines mg/L (as Cl2) 0.06 4
Chlorine/Bromine (field) mg/L (as Cl2) 1.0
DBPs
Bromodichloromethane μg/L 2.7 3.6 0.5
Bromoform μg/L 25.5 52 0.5
Chlorodibromomethane μg/L 7.3 9.4 0.5
Chloroform μg/L 1.1 1.3 0.5
Total Trihalomethanes μg/L 36.6 66.2 80 0.5
Bromochloroacetic Acid μg/L 1.1 1.2 0.3
Dibromoacetic Acid μg/L 5.9 7.6 0.4
Dichloroacetic Acid μg/L 1.0 ND 0.5
Monobromoacetic Acid μg/L ND ND 0.5
Monochloroacetic Acid μg/L ND ND 0.5
Trichloroacetic Acid μg/L ND ND 0.5
Total HAA(5) μg/L 6.9 7.6 60 0.5
Bromate mg/L ND 0.01 0.005
* The sample location is at the farthest point in the distribution system.
** The concentration of disinfectant was higher for the field measurement than for the lab test due
to “decay” of bromine in transit to the lab.
ND Not detected.
3.3 Discussion of Water Chemistry Characteristics

Some of the chemical characteristics of the groundwater are directly relevant to softening, some
are indirectly related to softening, some cause problems for certain treatment methods, and
others are of concern for other reasons. The following four subsections discuss (1) primary
contaminants, (2) secondary contaminants, (3) disinfection and disinfection byproducts, and (4)
substances that foul treatment systems or interfere with treatment.
14
3.3.1 Primary Contaminants

Primary contaminants are those regulated for health and safety reasons. None of the primary
contaminants are over their MCLs and most are below detection levels. The primary contaminant
of greatest concern that is near the MCL is arsenic, which is about 0.006 mg/L (MCL = 0.010 mg/L).
Because the groundwater arsenic concentration could possibly increase in the future (or the
regulatory limit may be lowered), it is prudent to have a mitigation plan. Fortunately, for now, the
arsenic concentration in the Douglas Well has decreased after one year of pumping instead of
increasing along with the salinity.
3.3.2 Secondary Contaminants

Limits for secondary contaminants are established only as guidelines to assist public water
systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color and
odor. These contaminants are not considered to present a risk to human health at the SMCL. The
finished water exceeded the secondary MCL (SMCL) for total dissolved solids in the December 21,
2012 sample. Chloride could potentially exceed the secondary MCL if substantially more saline
water were to be entrained by pumping. Sodium is not regulated as a contaminant. However, it is
well above the 20 mg/L level recommended for people on a very low sodium diet. A treatment
system that reduces the concentration of these constituents would be preferred, all other
considerations being equal.
Manganese exceeds the secondary MCL in the well water, but is well controlled in the finished
water due to the greensand filters, which were installed in 2011. If a sidestream of well water
were diverted for softening upstream of the greensand filters, then that softening system would
also have to remove manganese or pump the softened water into the greensand filters. The
manganese in the groundwater is present only in the dissolved form, meaning it is most likely not
present in the oxidized form. Manganese is not filterable until oxidized. In addition, it does not
stain or cause fouling in treatment systems until oxidized. Chlorine is used to oxidize manganese
before the greensand filters.
3.3.3 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts

Chlorine is used to completely oxidize the groundwater prior to greensand treatment (chlorine
also continuously regenerates the greensand active sites). Chlorine, in the form of hypochlorite, is
dosed at 2 mg/L. This oxidizes manganese, iron, sulfides, ammonia, and other reduced
compounds. Chlorine also chlorinates organic dissolved compounds to produce undesirable
disinfection byproducts (DBPs). DBPs consist mostly of trihalomethanes (e.g., chloroform and
bromoform) and haloacetic acids. Ferndale’s groundwater contains bromide (due to entrainment
of connate seawater). Nearly 100 percent of the bromide reacts with hypochlorous acid to
produce hypobromous acid and chloride. Hypobromous acid is roughly equivalent to
hypochlorous acid in disinfecting power and is even more reactive in forming DBPs.
While using Nooksack River water, the DBPs formed were primarily chlorinated, with chloroform
being the dominant species. Currently, due to the bromide content of the groundwater, the DBPs
formed are primarily brominated, with bromoform being the dominant species. The dissolved
total organic matter (TOC) is approximately 0.6 mg/L in the well water. The greensand does not
remove any TOC. A softening system that removes TOC before chlorine addition or DBPs after
chlorine addition would be preferred, all other things being equal.
15
The greensand treated water is dosed again with hypochlorite to achieve a residual disinfectant
level of about 0.8 to 1.0 mg/L (as Cl2), which ensures that the required residual is maintained
throughout the distribution system. Note that the finished water contains no measureable
chlorine, only bromine (Table 7).
3.3.4 Interfering Constituents

Some constituents interfere with treatment or cause fouling of treatment systems resulting in
shortened life spans and increased maintenance costs.
 Barium and strontium interfere by competing strongly with calcium and magnesium in ion
exchange treatment. Both are relatively low in both wells.
 Iron and manganese can foul membranes and cation exchange systems. Dissolved oxygen or
chlorine will convert Fe2+ (ferrous iron) into Fe3+ (ferric iron), which forms insoluble colloidal
hydroxide particles that may foul membranes or resins. The same process applies to
manganese, except that manganese is only slowly oxidized by dissolved oxygen.
 Silica can foul membranes and ion exchange systems. Membranes will become fouled with
insoluble colloidal silica or silica gel when the concentrate stream silica content exceeds the
solubility of silica. The negatively charged form of silica will react with calcium, magnesium,
manganese, and especially with iron and aluminum to form insoluble silicates, which will
foul membranes.
 Calcium carbonate or calcium sulfate precipitation can cause fouling of equipment.
 Organic matter can cause growths on membranes in the absence of a disinfectant. Dissolved
organic matter will adhere to anion exchange resin and may be difficult to remove during
regeneration. Dissolved organic matter (TOC) is low in the groundwater (0.5-0.6 mg/L) but
still requires some additional maintenance for nanofiltration.
 Iodide, nitrate, phosphates, silica, and sulfate can interfere with anion exchange treatment.
Only silica and sulfate are present at significant concentrations in the groundwater.
Iron and Manganese. The Douglas and Shop Wells both contain manganese and some iron, all in
the dissolved (unoxidized) state. Unoxidized iron and manganese do not cause significant
problems with either acid ion exchange or membrane treatment. It is important, then, not to
oxidize the raw well water (e.g., with chlorine or aeration) prior to ion exchange or membrane
treatment. That is, the well water should be pumped directly to the ion exchange or membrane
treatment.
Silica. The Douglas and Shop Wells both contain about 20 mg/L of reactive silica. 20 mg/L is well
below the solubility of silicic acid and therefore should not cause a problem for the cation
exchange process. This level of silica would be a concern for anion exchange, as it would compete
for exchange sites (i.e., increasing frequency of regeneration). A membrane treatment would
require anti-scalant measures be taken such as adding an anti-scalant chemical.
Calcium. The Douglas and Shop Wells both contain calcium, which will cause calcium carbonate
scaling of membranes. A membrane treatment would require anti-scalant measures be taken such
as reducing pH and adding an anti-scalant chemical.
16
4. Ion Exchange with Sodium as Regenerant

4.1 General Process Description
Calcium and magnesium ions are atoms having a positive electrical charge, as do sodium and
potassium ions. Ions of the same charge can be exchanged. In the ion exchange process, a
negatively charged resin (see photo below of typical dry and wetted resin beads) that is coated
with positively charged sodium or potassium ions, comes into contact with water containing
calcium and magnesium ions. Two positively charged sodium or potassium ions are exchanged
(released into the water) for every calcium or magnesium ion that is held by the resin. This
exchange happens because sodium or potassium are loosely held by the resin. In this way, calcium
and magnesium ions responsible for hardness are removed from the water (stay in the resin) and
sodium or potassium ions are released into the water. This process makes water soft, but also
more salty (much higher sodium content and increased TDS).
Figure 5. Graphic of softening ion exchange resin and photos of dry and wet resin beads.
Regeneration. Eventually, after continued use, a point is reached when very few sodium or
potassium ions remain on the resin, thus no more calcium or magnesium ions can be removed
from the incoming water. The resin at this point is said to be exhausted, and must be recharged or
regenerated. Regeneration is performed by flushing the media with a large quantity of salt
(sodium chloride) brine (which must be disposed of in the sewer system typically).
17
Table 8. Selectivity coefficients for a typical cation/anion exchange resins.

Selectivity Selectivity
Cation Coefficient Anion Coefficient
Li+ 0.76 HSiO3─ <1
H+ 1.00 F─ 0.2
Na+ 1.56 H2PO4─ 0.5
NH4+ 2.01 HCO3─ 0.8
Mn2+ 2.07 OH─ 1.0
K+ 2.28 Cl─ 1.5
Mg2+ 2.59 Br─ 3.5
Ca2+ 4.06 NO3─ 5.1
Sr2+ 5.13 HSO4─ 9.4
Ba2+ 9.06 I─ 11
Potassium chloride can be used instead of sodium, if sodium is a concern; however, the cost of the
salt is nearly double. In addition, the salinity will still increase in drinking water and the amount of
chloride brine discharged to waste is still very high. The table above shows that potassium has a
selectivity coefficient that is not much less than magnesium’s, thereby making potassium much
less efficient than sodium at removing magnesium. Note also in the above table that strontium
and barium compete strongly for negative sites and will reduce the resin softening efficiency.
4.2 Benefits and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange with

Sodium as Regenerant
Table 9. Benefits and disadvantages of Ion Exchange with sodium as regenerant.
Benefits Disadvantages
Removes 95% to 100% of hardness Removes only hardness
Standard technology Requires large quantities of salt for

regenerating resin
Flexible – can easily increase number of Requires discharge of large quantities of salt
treatment units or can vary the volume brine to the sewer (adds about 300 mg/L)
treated to adapt to changing hardness chloride to wastewater)
concentrations
Removes manganese Does not remove DBP precursors
Resin life expectancy good – 10 years Fouled by iron and manganese
Sensitive to chlorine (dechlorination needed)
18
4.3 Implementation
 The water would be split after being treated by the greensand filters. About half would go to
the ion exchange system and half would bypass it. The softened water, containing near zero
hardness, would be combined with the bypassed water stream to achieve an overall 50
percent reduction in hardness. The operator would be able to control the flow rates to each
of the parallel systems in order to achieve the desired final hardness level. Incoming
hardness would be monitored daily to adjust the proportions of the two flow streams.
 Two cation exchange tanks would give 1550 GPM total flow with no backup unit. Three
cation exchange tanks would give 2550 GPM total flow with no backup unit or 1550 with
one backup unit. Each tank is 9 feet in diameter. The regeneration equipment would require
a space of about 20 feet by 12 feet. The booster pumps would require a space of about 12
feet by 10 feet. The ancillary equipment would not require much additional room.
 These units would be installed downstream of the greensand units. This is necessary
because manganese and iron will foul the resin. Because of this arrangement, the feedwater
to the IEX will have to be dechlorinated and then repressurized with booster pumps.
 The amount of water wasted to produce about 1550 GPM or about 2.2 MGD water
(assuming 3% waste from the greensand) would be about 50 GPM (about 4%).
 The capital cost is about on par with the cost of ion exchange using acid as a regenerant. See
Cost Estimate section.
 The O&M costs are higher than for ion exchange using acid as a regenerant and about the
same as for nanofiltration. See Cost Estimate section.
19
5. Ion Exchange with Acid as Regenerant

The basic principles of the weak acid cation exchange softening system are the same as for water
deionization. In the deionization process, first all of the positively charged minerals (cations –
sodium, calcium, magnesium, iron and manganese) are removed by a weak acid resin (see the
Figure below). These cations attach to the resin in exchange for one positive hydrogen (thus
mineral acid, H+, is released into the water). Thus, the water becomes very acidic. In the next step,
all of the negatively charged minerals (anions) are removed by a weak base resin. These anions
attach to the resin in exchange for one negative hydroxide (thus mineral base, OH─, is released
into the water). In this process the same amount of acid and base are released such that the final
product has a neutral pH. The cation exchange resin is most selective for calcium followed in order
by magnesium, potassium, manganese, ammonia, and sodium.
The weak acid cation exchange process for softening only (not full deionization) is the same,
except that the second step of anion exchange and pH neutralization can be omitted. However,
the acid produced in the first step must be neutralized in a different way.
Figure 6. Illustrations of Ion Exchange using acid as a regenerant
Schematic of ion exchange process Schematic of ion exchange column
20
5.2 Process Description for Ferndale System

Cation Exchange. Using the weak acid cation exchange process only (omitting the anion exchange
step) is feasible for the Ferndale system. Douglas and Shop Wells are highly alkaline and have
enough excess alkalinity to neutralize the mineral acid; therefore, the second ion exchange step
(weak base) is not needed. Due to the high alkalinity of the well water, virtually all of the acid
formed during the cation exchange is carbonic acid (a weak acid). Carbonic acid converts readily to
carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide gas can be readily purged from the water in a degasifier, which
simply involves blowing air on the water. Between the carbon dioxide removal, the excess
alkalinity, and blending with unsoftened water, the pH can be kept at the preferred pH.
Sodium. Sodium is also removed in the process (at least initially). However, once all the H+ ions
are removed, hardness cations will displace most of the sodium (Na+) back into the water. The
high concentration of sodium in the well water increases the required frequency of resin
regeneration somewhat (i.e., a portion of the resin exchange sites are occupied by sodium).
Ammonia. Ammonia, which is present at a low concentration in the groundwater, is also
removed. However, at the end of the exchange cycle, ammonia may begin to be released at higher
concentrations than in the raw groundwater. This effect is compensated for by staggering the
regeneration cycles for the two IEX columns.
Resin Regeneration. After the resin capacity is exhausted, the resin is regenerated using a 1.5 to
3 percent solution of sulfuric acid or hydrochloric acid. All of the cations (including iron and
manganese) are displaced by H+. The excess regenerant waste stream contains a significant
quantity acid, which must be neutralized by feeding it slowly into the sewer system (i.e., dilution)
or by neutralization with soda ash, lime, or caustic soda. The quantity of waste acid is fairly low for
weak acid resin (as compared to strong acid resins). The volume of acid waste may vary from 20
percent to 50 percent of the total amount used, depending upon operating goals. This amount
could be easily be accepted by the wastewater treatment plant (without neutralization). One
caveat is that some additional lime dosing could be needed at the wastewater treatment plant
during the 5-month nitrification season.
Anion Exchange. The weak base anion exchange step can be added downstream of the softening
(cation exchange step) in order to remove sulfate, bromide, and chloride, thereby lowering the
TDS content of the water (Table 8 shows the selectivity of these anions for the resin – sulfate
being the most selective). Although the reduction in TDS due to softening alone (without anion
exchange) may be sufficient for the current water chemistry, it would be prudent to allow for the
potential installation of anion exchange tanks as needed in the future.
21
5.3 Benefits and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange with

Acid as Regenerant
Table 10. Benefits and disadvantages of Ion Exchange with acid as regenerant.
Removes 95 to 100% of hardness (including Removes some alkalinity (affects WWTP)

manganese)
Reduces TDS (by about 15%), which improves Does not remove anions (chloride, sulfate,
taste bromide)
Less chlorine use (about 30% less), which Does not remove DBP precursors
reduces DBPs by 10-20%
System fouling minimal (acid regeneration Requires handling/disposal of strong acid

removes iron and manganese)
Standard technology Few municipal projects have been implemented
Can remove sodium (however, this would The elevated well water sodium concentration
increase cost and complexity of the system) increases frequency of regeneration somewhat
Resin life expectancy good – 7 to 10 years Requires degasifier
Flexible – can easily increase number of

treatment units or can vary the volume treated
to adapt to changing hardness concentrations
Table 11. Benefits and disadvantages of full deionization (cation and anion exchange).
Benefits Disadvantages (compared to softening only)
Same as in Table 10. Increased space requirement
Removes anions (chloride, sulfate, bromide) Increased capital and O&M cost
Removes DBP precursors Removed DBP precursors decrease life of resin
Degasifier may be reduced in size or eliminated Silica fouling may reduce life of resin
Removes less alkalinity than softening only. Requires handling/disposal of strong acid base
Resin life expectancy only fair – 3 to 5 years
22
5.4 Implementation of Ion Exchange with Acid as

Regenerant
 The incoming water from the wells would be split prior to the ion exchange system and the
greensand filters. About half would go to each system. The softened water, containing near
zero hardness, would be combined with the greensand treated water stream to achieve an
overall 50 percent reduction in hardness. The operator would be able to control the flow
rates to each of the parallel systems in order to achieve the desired final hardness level.
Incoming hardness would be monitored daily to adjust the proportions of the two flow
streams.
 Two cation exchange tanks would give 1550 GPM total flow with no backup unit. Three
cation exchange tanks would give 2550 GPM total flow with no backup unit or 1550 with
one backup unit. Each tank is 9 feet in diameter and the degasifer would require about the
same amount of room. The acid tank and regeneration equipment would require about
20 feet by 12 feet. The ancillary equipment would not require much additional room.
 These units would be installed upstream of the greensand units and prior to chlorination.
Because of this arrangement, the feedwater to the IEX will not have to be dechlorinated or
repressurized with booster pumps.
 The amount of water wasted to produce about 1550 GPM or about 2.2 MGD (assuming 3%
waste from the greensand) would be about 50 GPM (about 3-4%).
 DBPs would likely be reduced by 10-20%. Total chlorine usage would be reduced by about
10-20%.
 The capital cost is about on par with the cost of ion exchange using sodium as a regenerant.
However, the operating cost is less than for ion exchange using sodium as a regenerant or
nanofiltration. See Cost Estimate section.
23
6. Nanofiltration
Reverse Osmosis (RO) systems are becoming more commonly used for water treatment. Typical
RO units are high-pressure (250 psi or more) membrane-based systems for removing essentially all
dissolved materials and are excellent for desalination of seawater. However, the volume of
concentrate that has to be waste is quite high 30-50 percent. Low-Pressure RO and
nanofiltration (NF) require pressures as low as only 70 psi and are very effective in removing
hardness and other relatively large dissolved substances (see Table 12).
Table 12. Potential Rejection Rates for Nanofiltration

Parameter Rejection Rate
Total Hardness 90%
Arsenic 85%
Bicarbonate 86%
Calcium 90%
Chloride 80%
Fluoride 85%
Iron 93%
Magnesium 90%
Manganese 90%
Nitrate 90%
Sodium 58%
Sulfate 96%
Total Organic Carbon 95%
Source: Briley, Hazen, and Sawyer, 2010.
A nanofiltration or low pressure RO system is a relatively simple, one-step process that reduces
hardness – without the regeneration of an ion exchange system or the lime usage and sludge
production of lime softening. A typical system recovers 75 percent of the incoming feedwater for
use. The other 25 percent of the feedwater stream is rejected by the membrane and is disposed of
as wastewater. The solutes in reject stream are up to four times the concentration in the
feedwater stream. Wasting 25 percent of the incoming water is unacceptable for the City of
Ferndale. The recovery rate can be increased by cycling the concentrate through additional
smaller nanofiltration systems (i.e., adding additional stages). However, as the reject water
becomes more concentrated, dissolved substances begin precipitating and reacting with other
substances and membrane fouling becomes a more significant maintenance and longevity issue.
For example, if the recovery is increased from 75 percent to 87.5 percent, the concentration of
silica and other foulants and scaling minerals is doubled. This dramatically increases the potential
for fouling in each subsequent stage, as the reject water becomes more and more concentrated
and scalants begin precipitating onto the membranes.
24
6.2 Process Description for the Ferndale System

A system to pressurize the feedwater (i.e., booster pumps) will be required because the well
pumps do not provide sufficient pressure for NF. Such pumps are usually provided with the NF
equipment.
Packaged systems are available complete with membrane elements, fiberglass reinforced plastic
pressure vessels with pressure relief protection, cartridge pre-filter with stainless housing, booster
pump, automatic valves and controls, mounted on a steel frame. A minimum of two nanofiltration
skids would be used. Each skid would contain virtually all of the equipment and would measure
about 23 feet by 9 feet each. The cleaning solution tanks and scale control dosing equipment
would require about 16 feet by 12 feet. The system would include continuous monitoring of pH,
oxidation-reduction potential (ORP), temperature, conductivity, percent salt rejection, and flows,
so performance can be monitored and protected from upset conditions in the feed water.
In order to minimize total system wastewater discharge (water waste) to a maximum of 7-10
percent of well production volume, the nanofiltration system will require a minimum of three
stages. The concentrate from the first stage passes to the second stage for additional recovery and
the concentrate from the second stage to the third stage for additional recovery. Each successive
stage is smaller than the preceding stage because it treats a smaller (but more concentrated)
feedwater stream.
Anti-scalants will need to be added to the feedwater to prevent scale formation on the
membranes. Anti-scalants are large molecules which do not pass through membrane. Some acid
may also need to be added to reduce pH, which helps prevent calcite scaling.
Overnight shutdowns require that the concentrate side of the membrane be flushed so that the
concentrated water does not precipitate out the foulants when the system is shut down. This can
be automated or manual.
To reduce fouling of the membranes, care must be taken to maintain the feed water and
concentrate in an unoxidized state. The following must be avoided:
• Oxygen leakage into the feedwater.
• Reaction of iron with silica to form insoluble iron silicate.
• Oxidation by iron reducing bacteria resulting in acceleration of biofilm growth and iron
deposit.
• Blending of ferrous iron containing water with water containing hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
since this could form an insoluble black ferrous sulfide, FeS.
25
6.3 Benefits of nanofiltration water treatment
Table 13. Benefits and disadvantages of nanofiltration
Removes 85% to 90% of hardness More water wasted (and more wastewater
(including manganese). Alkalinity removal to WWTP). About 7% to 10% waste overall.
does not affect WWTP.
Reduces TDS (by about 40% overall), which More susceptible to fouling due to the
improves taste. concentrated nature of reject water
Less chlorine use (about 40% less) and Some alkalinity may be lost due to pH
removes DBP precursors, which reduces adjustment needed to prevent scaling
DBPs by 20-50% overall an improves taste.
Water pH after nanofiltration is Higher electricity usage

non-aggressive
Reductions of arsenic and heavy metals Requires adjustments to raw water pH and
addition of chemical conditioners to
prevent mineral scaling
Reductions of ammonia and sulfate Requires addition of chemical conditioners

to prevent silica fouling
Membrane life expectancy fair to good – 5

years to 7 years
Flexible – can easily increase number of

treatment units or can vary the volume
treated to adapt to changing hardness
concentrations
Reductions in ammonia and sulfate
26
6.4 Implementation of Nanofiltration

 The incoming water from the wells would be split prior to nanofiltration system and the
greensand filters. About half would go to each system. The softened water stream
containing about 5-10 mg/L hardness, would be combined with the greensand treated water
stream to achieve an overall 50 percent reduction in hardness. The operator would be able
to control the flow rates to each of the parallel systems in order to achieve the desired final
hardness level. Incoming hardness would be monitored daily to adjust the proportions of
the two flow streams.
 Two nanofiltration skids (and greensand) would give 1550 GPM total flow with no backup
unit. Three nanofiltration skids would give 2550 GPM total flow with no backup unit or 1550
with one backup unit. Each skid would contain virtually all of the equipment and would
measure about 23 feet by 9 feet. The cleaning/dosing solution tanks and equipment would
require about 16 feet by 12 feet.
 The amount of water produced using 1700 GPM of well flow would be about 1550 GPM or
2.2 MGD. The total waste (assuming 3% waste from the greensand) would be about
140 GPM (about 8%).
 These units would be installed upstream of the greensand units and prior to chlorination.
Because of this arrangement, the feedwater to the NF will not have to be dechlorinated.
Feedwater will have to be conditioned with acid and anti-scalants prior to introduction into
the membrane units. The feedwater to the membranes will have to be pressurized to about
70-120 PSI with booster pumps.
 The DBPs would likely be reduced by about 40%. Total chlorine usage would be reduced by
about 30%.
 The capital cost of nanofiltration is about 60 percent higher than the cost of ion exchange
using acid as a regenerant. See Cost Estimate section.
 The O&M cost of nanofiltration is about 10 percent higher than for ion exchange using acid
as a regenerant. See Cost Estimate section.
27
7. Lime Softening
7.1 General
Lime softening consists of directing 100 percent of the raw water stream into a lime contact basin
followed by a clarifier and a filter. This would replace the greensand manganese treatment system.
This treatment will produce water with a hardness of 50-70 mg/L. This process removes some other
contaminants as well, including some portion of the TOC (natural organic chemicals) and metals. It
will also remove arsenic; however, this requires even more lime usage.
7.2 Lime Softening Costs

A lime softening system would cost over $3,000,000 dollars plus ancillary infrastructure, which
would push the cost to well over $4,000,000. This approach is not comparable in cost to other
approaches and could only be considered for reasons other than softening.
28
8. Disinfection Alternatives
8.1 Background
The City of Ferndale uses chlorine in the form of hypochlorite for disinfection. Hypochlorite is
generated onsite. It is added to the raw water prior to the manganese removal filters. It is added
again to the water to meet the target disinfection treatment level in the chlorine contact tank. The
existing disinfection system is effective. Although disinfectants make water safe, disinfectants and
DBPs are undesirable aesthetically and have some negative health effects.
The table below lists some of the factors that may influence the choice of the disinfection method.
Table 14. Factors that may influence the choice of the disinfection method
Chlorine
(Gas or
Produced Chlorine
Hypochlorite) Dioxide Chloramine Ozone Bromine*
Produces trihalomethanes? yes no yes sometimes yes
Produces other unwanted
yes yes yes yes yes
byproducts?
Maintains residual fair to
fair to good fair best no
effectively? good
Meets Giardia removal
no yes no yes no
standards?
Meets Cryptosporidium
no no no yes no
removal standards?
Meets virus removal
yes yes no yes yes
standards?
Operator skill level low high low/med high low
* Not used normally but will be produced when bromide is present in the groundwater
Chlorine is added to raw water prior to greensand manganese removal. If chlorine could be added
only after treatment, less DBPs would be created. This would require changing to chlorine dioxide
addition prior to the greensand filters. As an alternative to continuous addition of chlorine (or
chlorine dioxide) to the raw water prior to greensand filtration, the greensand could be
reactivated periodically using permanganate, which is a more complicated regeneration process
than continuous dosing.
29
9. Cost Estimates
Cost estimates for each of the three viable approaches are shown in summary below and in more
detail in the following pages.
Table 15. Summary of cost estimates.
Softening Method Capital Cost
IEX (sodium regenerant) $1,000,000 to $1,200,000
IEX (acid regenerant) $1,000,000 to $1,200,000
Nanofiltration $1,600,000 to $2,100,000
Softening Method O & M Cost
IEX (sodium regenerant) $79,000 to $99,000

IEX (acid regenerant) $70,000 to $90,000
Nanofiltration $79,000 to $99,000
Notes:
1. Capital costs assume no redundant backup unit.
2. O&M costs do not include labor.
30
Table 16. Estimated Costs for IEX with Sodium Regeneration

EQUIPMENT AND DESIGN FLOWS
Number of Treatment Units 2
Design Flow, GPM (all units online) 1,550
Design Flow, MGD (all units online) 2.20
CAPITAL COSTS
Item Cost
Pipes and Valves $50,000
Instrumentation and Controls $120,000
Cation Tanks $110,000
Tank Valves $30,000
System Air Compressor $7,500
Degasifier NA
Regeneration Equipment $52,500
Booster Pumps $120,000
Dechlorination $30,000
Miscellaneous $60,000
Subtotal Equipment $580,000
Operator Training $3,000
Piloting $30,000
Ancillary Capital Costs $140,000
Subtotal capital costs $753,000
Engineering $130,000
Contingency $150,000
Tax $89,871
Total $1,122,871
Total Rounded to $1000 $1,123,000
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

Item Cost/year
Salt $70,000
Resin Replacement $12,000
Repair, Maintenance and Replacement $3,000
Process Monitoring (HPCs) $1,500
Power $2,500
Total Annual O&M Cost $89,000
Notes:
31
Table 17. Estimated Costs for IEX with Acid Regeneration

CAPITAL COSTS
Item Cost
Cation Tanks $120,000
Tank Valves $27,000
System Air Compressor $7,500
Degasifier $50,000
Air blower $22,500
Hydrochloric Acid Regen Equip $50,000
Acid Storage Tank $30,000
Piloting $30,000
Subtotal capital costs $722,500
Tax $88,088
Total $1,100,588
Total Rounded to $1000 $1,101,000

Item Cost/year
Acid $60,000
Resin Replacement $12,000
Process Monitoring $1,500
Power $2,500
Notes:
32
Table 18. Estimated Costs for Nanofiltration System

CAPITAL COSTS
Item Cost
Cartridge Prefiltration $10,000
Acid and Anti-Scalant Feed Systems $60,000
System Feed Pumps $170,000
Nanofilter Membrane Elements $50,000
Membrane Skid with Filter Housing $200,000
Clean-In-Place (CIP) System $60,000
Online Conductivity/pH/Turbidity Meters $10,000
Piloting $50,000
Subtotal capital costs $1,243,000
Tax $147,291
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,840,291
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS rounded to $1000 $1,840,000

Item Cost/year
Acid, Anti-Scalant, Caustic Chemicals $40,000
Clean-in-Place Chemicals $2,000
NF Membrane Replacement $16,000
Process Monitoring $2,000
Power $25,000
Notes:
33
10. Conclusions
Cation exchange using mineral acid is a feasible option for softening water from the City’s wells. It
provides the desired softening with little negative effects. The only significant negative is that it
reduces the alkalinity of the water supply, which changes the water from being scaling to be very
slightly corrosive. More significantly, loss of alkalinity may require addition of lime in the
wastewater treatment plant. Cation exchange does not remove any anions (including arsenic) or
organic chemicals.
Nanofiltration (or low pressure reverse osmosis) is a feasible option for softening water from the
City’s wells. The total amount of water wasted can be limited to about 8 percent, including the
amount wasted in the greensand filters, by using a three-stage system. Nanofiltration has many
positive benefits: reductions in TDS, arsenic, organic chemicals, DBP precursors, and heavy metals.
At the target recovery of about 88 percent, membrane fouling is a concern and will need to be well
controlled with the addition of anti-scalants.
All other treatment methods are deemed infeasible or, as in the case of sodium ion exchange,
undesirable.
The design flow of 1550 GPM (for all alternatives) assumes 150 mg/L hardness and that 50 percent
of this flow bypasses softening. This design flow is sufficient to meet Peak Day Demand through
2023 or Peak Month Demand through 2030, while keeping hardness at about 70 mg/L. If well water
hardness rises, then the flow capacity would be downgraded. For example, at 175 mg/L hardness,
the design flow would be downgraded to 1300 GPM for a target hardness of 70 mg/L. Alternatively,
to accommodate a flow of 1550 GPM, treated water hardness could be allowed to increase to 87
mg/L (which is generally still an acceptable level) during the higher flow period.
Chlorination of the water before and after manganese treatment produces disinfection byproducts –
primarily THMs, which need to be kept below 0.080 mg/L for compliance. Nanofiltration would
reduce THMs by as much as 50 percent. Cation exchange will only partially reduce THMs. Changes to
the greensand filtration system and disinfection system can be implemented in the future if
necessary to further control disinfection byproducts.
34
11. Recommendations
The best alternative is to install a three-stage nanofiltration or low pressure RO system. These
membrane systems work well for softening but also have many other advantages. Potential future
compliance issues – with arsenic, TDS, chloride, or DBPs – can be mitigated by nanofiltration.
However, this is the most costly option.
Two units (two skids) will meet peak day demand through 2023. Because softening is not a required
treatment, a redundant backup unit is not required. Therefore, in order to save on upfront capital
costs, it is recommended the installation be only for the capacity needed out to 10 years (2023) with
no redundant backup unit. However, design should accommodate an additional unit in the future.
After reviewing the existing processes, we recommend that the chlorination system continue to be
used as designed while minimizing chlorine usage. If THMs become a compliance issue in the future,
the City should consider changing the disinfection method or the greensand reactivation method.
35
12. References
Briggs, J.C., and Ficke, J.F. 1977. Quality of Rivers of the United States, 1975 Water Year -- Based on
the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 78-200, 436 p.
Briley, David S., Hazen and Sawyer. 2010. Water Treatment Options for Coastal Communities to
Meet the Stage 2 DBP Rule. NC AWWA-WEA 90th Annual Conference held November 14-17, 2010 in
Winston-Salem, NC.
Cox, Stephen and Sue Kahle. 1993. Hydrology and Water Quality in Lowland Glacial Aquifers
of Whatcom County, Washington and British Columbia, Canada. Prepared for public workshop
presentation at Lynden, Washington, sponsored by Whatcom County Health Department, December
3, 1993.
Richter, Bernd C. and Charles W. Kreitler. 1991. Identification of sources of ground-water salinization
using geochemical techniques. EPA/600/2-91/064 December 1991.
Vaccaro, J.J., A.J. Hansen, Jr., and M.A. Jones. 1998. Hydrogeologic Framework of the Puget Sound
Aquifer System, Washington and British Columbia. REGIONAL AQUIFER-SYSTEM ANALYSIS — PUGET-
WILLAMETTE LOWLAND U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1 424-D.
36
APPENDIX A
Vaccaro et al (1998) reported that in Whatcom County “… the dominant water types in the upper
aquifer units are calcium bicarbonate, magnesium bicarbonate, or calcium magnesium
bicarbonate. Deeper aquifer units, in addition, contain ground water of a sodium bicarbonate or a
sodium chloride type. Generally, sodium bicarbonate water has been attributed to proximity to
consolidated bedrock, to longer residence time in the ground-water system, and to the presence of
fine grained marine deposits of recent age (Whiteman and others, 1983; Dion and others, 1988;
G.L. Turney, U.S. Geological Survey, written commun., 1994). The sodium bicarbonate water also
contains larger concentrations of dissolved solids. Sodium chloride water generally is associated
with mixing of native ground water with seawater; this water also has larger concentrations of
magnesium.
Illustration of entrainment of saline groundwater (Berndt et al, 1991).
Although large concentrations of chloride are typically found in ground water near the shoreline,
S.E. Cox, USGS, written comm., 1993) found large concentrations of chloride in water at depth in
deposits several miles inland from the shoreline in the Fraser-Whatcom Basin in Whatcom County.
It appears that this water is contained in glaciomarine drift. After the drift was deposited, its
subsequent burial at shallow depths during the Sumas Stade may have been so rapid that the
contained saltwater was not flushed out. Within the part of the study area in British Columbia,
Halstead (1986) mapped large concentrations of chloride in ground water in both the glaciomarine
drift and some of the alluvial deposits. The water-level configurations (fig. 10) indicate that the
chloride in the alluvial deposits is derived from water that has moved through the glaciomarine
drift into the alluvial deposits.”
Cox and Kahle (1993) reported that “… the concentrations of chloride in ground waters of the LENS
[Lynden, Everson, Nooksack, Sumas] study area are variable, concentrations observed in water
samples from 346 wells sampled for this project range from 0.3 to 2,800 mg/L with a median value
A-1
of 8.8 mg/L. While some samples from all hydrogeologic units had chloride concentrations below 2
mg/L, the larger chloride concentrations were unevenly distributed throughout the hydrogeologic
units of the LENS study area. … Connate sea water, trapped during the last glacial episode is the
source of chloride in most ground water with concentrations larger than 20 mg/L.”
Based on the location of the Ferndale wells being 5 miles inland and there being no known cases
of seawater intrusion this far inland in Whatcom County and the limited zone of influence of the
Ferndale wells, it is unlikely that seawater intrusion is occurring. Such seawater if present has
probably been present for centuries.
Locations of wells with chloride at higher than 250 mg/L. The elevation of
the well screen is shown (minus prefix indicates elevation below mean
sea level). Source: Cox, Stephen and Sue Kahle. 1993.
A-2

Final Water Softening Report 20130403

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Final Water Softening Report 20130403

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Water Softening Alternatives Analysis

The City of Ferndale Public Works

Acronyms and Abbreviations .......................................................................................... iii

Table 12. Potential Rejection Rates for Nanofiltration ..........................................................................24

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CaCO3 calcium carbonate

Taste is also an issue – taste is affected by mineral concentrations and by disinfection.

The principal differences between the two methods are:

 NF provides for removal of many other parameters in addition to hardness

IEX and NF System Advantages Comparison

Removes 95%-100% of hardness (including Removes 85%-90% of hardness (including

Low electricity consumption. Reduces arsenic concentration.

Estimated Total Capital Costs for IEX and NF

IEX (acid regenerant) $1.0M to $1.2M

Nanofiltration $1.6M to $2.1M

Estimated Operations and Maintenance Costs for IEX and NF

IEX (acid regenerant) $70K to $90K

Nanofiltration $79K to $99K

1. Introduction and Purpose

1.2 Goals and Objectives

 Water supply demand (existing and future)

The design flow used for this evaluation is:

Maximum Daily Flow = 1550 GPM

DEMAND TYPE UNITS YEAR

2012 2022 2032

Average Daily Flow (GPM)

Average Daily Flow (GPM)

3.2 Water Chemistry Characteristics

Table 3. Hardness and softening related parameters.

Jan 2012 (blended) 12 8.22 241 -- 0.143 0.012

Feb 2012 (blended) 12 8.26 266 -- 0.145 0.013

Mar 2012(blended) 12 8.27 279 137 0.141 0.014

Apr 2012 (blended) 12 8.19 275 154 0.169 0.017

May 2012 (blended) 12 8.24 274 154 0.170 0.016

Jun 2012 (blended) 12 8.17 275 158 0.174 0.017

Jul 2012 (blended) 12 8.19 275 164 0.169 0.017

Aug 2012 (blended) 12 8.19 271 162 0.166 0.018

12/21/2012 (blended) 12 8.20 240 160 0.155 0.011

Table 4. Major TDS components of groundwater at different points in time.

Total Diss. Solids

Table 5. Comparison of hardness and corrosion potential characteristics

Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3) 35 265 180 to 265

Hardness (mg/L CaCO3) 70 150 70

Calculated Langelier Index** -1.65 0.6 -0.2 to 0.5

* Value is dependent on softening method

Table 6. Water chemistry testing results for December 21, 2012.

Table 7. Disinfectants and DBPs in 12/21/2012 finished water.

3.3 Discussion of Water Chemistry Characteristics

3.3.1 Primary Contaminants

3.3.2 Secondary Contaminants

3.3.3 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts

3.3.4 Interfering Constituents

4. Ion Exchange with Sodium as Regenerant

Table 8. Selectivity coefficients for a typical cation/anion exchange resins.

4.2 Benefits and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange with

Removes 95% to 100% of hardness Removes only hardness

Standard technology Requires large quantities of salt for

Removes manganese Does not remove DBP precursors

Resin life expectancy good – 10 years Fouled by iron and manganese

Sensitive to chlorine (dechlorination needed)

5. Ion Exchange with Acid as Regenerant

Figure 6. Illustrations of Ion Exchange using acid as a regenerant

Schematic of ion exchange process Schematic of ion exchange column

5.2 Process Description for Ferndale System