Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
gestetner_gw

Softener & Carbon Sizing Large Newer Home with Jacuzzi on Municip

gestetner
11 years ago

I've been reading a lot of past threads on softener sizing and recommendations. I'm about to replace a system and I want to make sure I make the right decisions. Here's the info on the home:

3,800 sq. ft, 4.5 bath house on municipal water in Southern California. House was built in 2000-2001.

A few years ago a local water company tested the hardness at 26 GPG with TDS of 462. I am now working with an independent who lives around the corner (on same municipal water as me) and services my neighbor. The independent says that he's tested as high 25 GPG in our neighborhood, but more typically in the 15 to 16 range. The Water district buys water from multiple sources at different times of the year, some supplies are more hard than others, like Colorado River water.

Plumbing into the home and to the existing water system is 1 1/4" copper. Current water system is already plumbed into the garage with a drain line to just above an interior sink trap (second floor laundry sink).

Water pressure is excellent: 125 PSI from the street. My recollection is that it is 55 or 60 PSI after the reducer going into the house. (I forgot to buy a gauge the other day but I can test it in a day or so if need be.)

No problems with iron, sulfur smell, or sediment. Problems are with hardness and chloramines (see below).

2 people typically in the home. Don't have kids yet but that's a possibility in a few years. About once a month an extra person stays in the guest room and maybe twice a year I have 3 or 4 guests for a week or weekend. The house has a front loading washer and a dishwasher. Every four months or so I have from 10 to 20 people over for parties and 2 bathrooms are used for toilets and sinks, with a third bathroom upstairs being used sparingly if the others are full.

Large Master bathroom shower has two independent shower heads with their own valves. The bucket test on the larger main head (larger panhead with a mixer valve) filled the bucket in 1 minute 35 seconds, which is about 3.16 GPM on the middle setting of the mixer valve. The secondary head is 2.5 GPM. Both are used simultaneously when two people shower together at the same time.

Master bathroom has a jacuzzi tub, which is the highest flowing fixture in the house. I did the bucket test and it took 20 seconds to fill a 5 gallon bucket, which is 15 GPM.

Every morning, I run the jacuzzi tub hot line full blast to get the hot water up to the shower on this side of the house.

Two bathrooms have combo shower/tubs. One bathroom has a shower (no tub) which never gets used. The fifth bathroom is a powder room with only a sink and toilet.

The water district uses chloramines. There is a heavy chlorine smell to the water, which I would like to remove. Copper pipes in the area have been sprouting expensive pinhole leaks like crazy. Even though the homes in my neighborhood are only 10-11 years old, at least 10 of my close neighbors have had pinhole leaks from something corroding the copper pipes. Water district denies it's the problem of course, but it's been happening all over the same water district, not just in my neighborhood. Many have asserted that he problem comes from the hard water and the chloramines. A bunch of neighbors just had $30,000 to $50,000 insurance repairs, then paid $13,000 to have their pipes lined with plastic. (Interestingly, of the people I know that had pinhole leaks, none of them had water softeners.) NOTE: I don't want to turn this thread into debate on the cause of the pinhole leaks!!!!

My existing system is four years old but it was bypassed over a year and a half ago and the awter has been untreated since. It was a combo of carbon and resin in a single tank, sold by one of the national big boys. In sum, I had problems with it and then it blew up, spraying water all over the place. It had 1 cu ft of carbon and 2.3 cu ft of resin in a single 14x65 tank, with a relabeled Fleck 7000 1 1/4" valve.

I once checked the flow rate on the existing water system display while the Jacuzzi tub was running and it showed 27 GPM. It was a few years ago so I have no idea what else might have been running as this was higher than the bucket test I performed on just the Jacuzzi.

The independent I spoke to recommended much more carbon for this size home than my current system. I agree for two reasons: one is size of the home and flow rate (1 cu ft is inadequate), the second is that articles say that you need a lot of soak time to address chloramines. He recommended 4 cu ft of carbon in a 14 x65 tank with a Fleck 7000 valve. Price is VERY reasonable.

He recommended a 14x65 tank with Fleck 7000 valve for the softener. 3.0 cu ft of 10% resin. (He said that 12x52 would probably serve most of the softening needs but I might have flow rate issues with the Jacuzzi and the carbon tank feeding into it needed to be 14x65). Water would hit the carbon tank first, then go to the softener tank.

My peak and potential future softening needs are larger than my current average usage. I don't want to undersize my system when it's probable that I'll need more capacity. I want to maintain the 1 1/4" connection.

One thought is that I would avoid channeling concerns because I run the Jacuzzi tub hot line every morning full bore.

The price for the whole two tank system is VERY reasonable and about half the cost of what I paid four years ago for the undersized single tank system from the national company.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Comments (9)

  • gestetner
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Here is some additional information on water quality results. Most of the results are from the Water District's last two annual reports, although as noted I had on site hardness and TDS measurements in hand from a prior water treatment company.

    2011 Water District Report on Testing in 2010 (Average number followed by range of detections)

    Iron: No Listing
    Manganese: No Listing
    Magnesium: No listing
    Hardness: 14-18 GPG
    Copper: Below Action Level
    Chloride: 93/83-93 ppm
    Nitrates: Not detected
    pH: 7.9/7.5-8.0
    Sodium: 95/78-95 ppm
    Chlorine residual 2.08/1.8-2.3 ppm
    TTHM: 46/42.2-57.2 ppb
    Haloacetic Acids 15.4/9.3-24.0 ppb
    TDS: 590/470-610

    2012 Water District Report on Testing in 2011 (Average number followed by range of detections)

    Iron: No Listing
    Manganese: No Listing
    Magnesium: No listing
    Hardness: 11/3-16 GPG
    Copper: Below Action Level
    Chloride: 72/70-75 ppm
    Nitrates: Not detected
    pH: 8.0/7.0-8.6
    Sodium: 72/67-77 ppm
    Chlorine residual 2.2/0.3-3.0 ppm
    TTHM: 53.1/36-66.8 ppb
    Haloacetic Acids 30.5/22.3-39.8 ppb
    TDS: 470/440-490

    A noted in my first post, a local water treatment company tested a few years ago at my house with hardness of 26 GPG and TDS of 462. My current independent water guy says his typical tests in my neighborhood are 16 GPG but that he routinely tests as high as 25 GPG due to variations in the supply throughout the year.

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Does "no listing" mean non-detectable amount or that tests for that is not done?

    Reports from water authorities are helpful but as you're seeing they do not indicate the water conditions at your water meter and that is the water you want to treat, right?

    If the water conditions at your home fluctuate then you use the highest numbers you actually test there not what the report says or what a test resulted a few years ago... if you want to do it right.

    If 10 of my close neighbors were experiencing pinhole leaks in their copper pipe I'd be investigating that and correcting it.

  • gestetner
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Hello, justalurker. I've enjoyed reading a lot of your past posts. Thanks for the reply.

    I understand that the highest number is used. I was posting the averages and ranges just to be thorough because I had them in front of me. It's like building a 50 foot dam for the average lake level when it regularly tops 75 feet. Not too hard to understand.

    I understand that it would be best to have a dedicated report on MY tap but I don't have one. All of the local water folks said it was not necessary on this municipal system. My current guy said it really wasn't necessary, other than the specific GPG and TDS I already have, both of which were consistent with the max values he has tested in my area. Since we're on newer pipes and he both lives around the corner and services other homes in my 81 home neighborhood (all built at same time, by the same builder), I'm fairly comfortable with his reassurance.

    I goofed on the magnesium and I accidentally left off the calcium from the District reports, they were:

    2010 Calcium: 51-70 ppm
    2010 Magnesium: 22-28 ppm

    2011 Calcium: 47-55 ppm
    2011 Magnesium: 22-28 ppm

    "No Listing" means that the water district reports didn't include those items in the charts (NOT "None Detected"). The written sections explained that "hardness comes from magnesium and calcium" but said nothing about manganese at all.

    I could not find any mention in the reports of Iron, either, although I have no orange staining, etc. My water guy just confirmed that Iron is too low in our supply to affect anything.

    CLARIFICATION: My water guy thought that a 2.0 (12") or 2.5 cu ft (13") softener was sufficient. He clarified that he would go to the 14x65 3.0 cu ft because I was so concerned about flow rates. He was concerned that 3.0 would be overkill and less water and salt efficient. One of the reasons I am posting is to get the opinions here because I respect the knowledge on this board. I don't subscribe to the "your neighbor has a 1.0 cu ft system and has never complained" theory of sizing, either.
    I have investigated the pinhole leak issue as best I can at this point. It is definitely not a defective piping issue as it has affected copper pipes all over the water district in a wide age of homes. The exact cause is currently being debated, but experts have been opining that it is a result of the chloramines and possibly the hardness interacting somehow. There were recent news articles on threats of litigation, with the Water District denying that they've ever received a complaint about pinhole leaks (a total lie). (Also, these are not pinholes caused by morons placing metal brackets, etc. in contact with the copper. These are corroding from the inside out in places where nothing is in contact with the pipes.)

    Thanks much!

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The difference between mandated water quality testing at the treatment point and the water conditions around a municipal system can be dramatic.

    Based on your posts you seem predisposed to what your local water treatment guy has to say so I'll beg off.

    Let us know how it works out so we can all benefit from your experience.

  • gestetner
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    justalurker,

    I am exactly NOT predisposed to what my local water treatment guy has to say. That is why I am here. I am merely posting as much info as I currently have, including what he told me.

    Like I said, I do not have a complete water test at my tap. By the time I started looking into local water testing labs it was too late in the day to call them so I haven't contacted one yet.

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    gestetner - Just popping in to let you know I'm not ignoring your question, just super busy. I can run some numbers tomorrow. Actual Iron and Manganese numbers could change anything I can tell you with the current information you have provided. Every 1 ppm (parts per million) Iron or Manganese must be treated as 5 gpg (grains per gallon) hardness. Iron is one of those things that water can pick up on the way to your house from the city water facility.

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    After running some numbers, it looks like your local water guy is pretty much on top of things. A 1.5 cuft softener would be the correct size for your hardness and number of people, but not likely provide adequate flow rate. While a 3.0 cuft softener is quite large for the number of people you have at present, it will provide the flow you need, particularly if your jacuzzi will be filling at the same time other things are using water. I caution you, however, that the softener will need to be set up to use a very low salt dose in order to use a reasonable amount of salt - this will not be a typical set up. Additionally, the softener should be reprogrammed if the population of your household is permanently increased. With two people, I would set the salt dosage at 3 lb salt/cuft resin. Three people - 4.5 lb salt/cuft resin. Four people - 6 lb salt/cuft resin.

    Because your softener will be so large for the more typical lower flow rates when your jacuzzi is not filling, you need to be absolutely certain your softener has:

    1. Top distribution basket
    2. Gravel underbed, enough to cover bottom basket.

    Pinhole leaks in copper is directly related to water chemistry, but not understood all that well. By softening your water and removing chloramines, you may improve your situation, but that is not necessarily the case. Often, waters with high TDS, such as yours, will be corrosive despite efforts to remove some constituents. The only method that is proven to solve the problem is the addition of phosphates as corrosion inhibitors, but that is something that needs to be done at your water treatment facility, not by you.

  • gestetner
    Original Author
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    aliceinwonderland,

    Your calcs touched on the very thing that I was concerned about--the proper size for the flow rate of my plumbing fixtures versus the hardness figures. Thank you for the reply and answering my questions.

    I'd done some further reading and ran across the NAHB paper on sizing softener systems for minimum plumbing code flow rate requirements. Starting to learn about "water supply fixture units" and the like. There is a lot to learn here.

    I've read lots of articles about including the gravel underbed, so that's not a surprise and is planned. I'll ask to make sure there is a top distribution basket, as well.

    Thank you much for the recommendations about the salt dosing. That's an area I have not started learning about yet.

    QUESTION: Given the fact that the larger system is dictated by the flowrates of the fixtures, is there enough extra capacity that the more detailed water test is now not needed? I suspect that might be the case but don't want to make any assumptions. On the other hand, if the larger system has so much extra capacity that ungodly amounts of iron and manganese would not dictate a larger requirement, then would testing for iron and manganese still be needed? If you still feel it would be good to get the more detailed testing done, I will get it done next week.

    Thanks again.

  • User
    11 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    The top basket is extremely important with such a large softener, but fortunately is a very cheap part.

    With a 3 cuft softener you will have enough capacty, theoretically, to deal with up to 5 ppm iron and manganese. If you had those concentrations, you would be seeing staining. The specific concentrations will therefore not affect softener sizing for you, BUT they will affect the way we program the softener for operation. Your local water treatment guy says it is not high enough to cause a problem - have him run an iron test on your water just to be certain AND to get the number for softener controller setup.

    Since you seem interested in learning the technical aspects of softener operation, I've linked an informative article about brine efficiency. After you've read it, feel free to ask any questions you may have.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Brine efficiency