Draft Water Softening Project Report 10-14-13

DRAFT
Water Softening Project Report
Prepared for:
The City of Ferndale Public Works

Ferndale, Washington
Prepared by
October 14, 2013

DRAFT
Water Softening Project Report
Prepared for:
The City of Ferndale Public Works
Ferndale, Washington
Prepared By:
Wilson Engineering, LLC
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... ii

1. Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1
2. Planning............................................................................................................................... 3
3. Water Quality ...................................................................................................................... 3
4. Water Quantity and Water Rights .................................................................................... 13
5. Analysis of Alternatives ..................................................................................................... 14
6. Design Criteria and Engineering Calculations ................................................................... 27
7. Capital Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................ 31
8. Legal Considerations ......................................................................................................... 32
9. Operations and Maintenance Considerations .................................................................. 32
10. Start-up, Testing, and Operations..................................................................................... 34
11. Training Requirements...................................................................................................... 34
12. Treatment System Reliability ............................................................................................ 35
13. Chemical Overfeed and Backflow Prevention .................................................................. 35
14. Pilot Study Results............................................................................................................. 36
15. Summary ........................................................................................................................... 36
TABLES
Table 1. Hardness and softening related parameters. .............................................................................4
Table 2. Major TDS components of groundwater at different points in time. ........................................6
Table 3. Comparison of hardness and corrosion potential characteristics ..............................................8
Table 4. Water chemistry testing results for December 21, 2012 and April 10, 2013. ............................9
Table 5. Disinfectants and DBPs in finished water. ................................................................................10
Table 6. Water usage existing and projected, assuming 2.78 percent annual growth .......................14
Table 7. Selectivity coefficients for a typical cation/anion exchange resins. .........................................16
Table 8. Benefits and disadvantages of Ion Exchange with sodium as regenerant. ..............................16
Table 9. Benefits and disadvantages of Ion Exchange with acid as regenerant. ....................................20
Table 10. Benefits and disadvantages of full deionization (cation and anion exchange). .....................20
Table 11. Potential Rejection .................................................................................................................22
Table 12. Benefits and disadvantages of nanofiltration.........................................................................24
Table 13. NF Unit Configuration and Characteristics .............................................................................28
Table 14. Capacity of Water Softening System for Maximum Day Demand ..........................................29
Table 15. Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements ...............................................................................31
Table 16. Estimated Cost of Operation and Maintenance .....................................................................33
FIGURES
Figure 1. Illustration of major TDS components of the Douglas Well at different points in time ...........6
Figure 2. Illustration of major TDS components of the Shop Well at different points in time ................7
Figure 3. Graphic of softening ion exchange resin and photos of dry and wet resin beads. .................15
Figure 4. Illustrations of Ion Exchange using acid as a regenerant ........................................................18
Figure 5. Schematic of Reverse Osmosis Membrane .............................................................................22
APPENDIX A Drawings
APPENDIX B Pilot Study Report and Data
APPENDIX C Water Quality Data
DRAFT i
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
g/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
DRAFT ii
WATER SOFTENING PROJECT REPORT CITY OF FERNDALE
1. Project Description
1.1 Problem Description
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). In addition, the total dissolved solids (TDS) is near or over the 500 mg/L SMCL.
The existing treatment system consist only of manganese removal using greensand and disinfection
with hypochlorite. The existing treatment system cannot reduce hardness or TDS.
The objectives of this report are to:
Identify and evaluate feasible options for softening the water (i.e., reducing hardness) and
implement the selected alternative. This evaluation examines 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 it should not cause
any unwanted side effects.
1.2 Summary of the recommended alternative, proposed

construction schedule, estimated project cost, and
financing method
Nanofiltration (NF) is the recommended softening system for implementation because it provides a
good softening system, the best overall treatment, the best improvement in taste, can better
address potential future compliance issues, and can be implemented at a reasonable cost. The
softening system twill have two parallel NF units each with a 500 GPM capacity. Provision will be
made for a future 500 GPM NF unit.
Construction is expected to begin in early 2014 and be completed by August or September 2014.
The capital cost is estimated to be $1.8 to $2.1 million (including engineering). The Operations and
Maintenance cost is expected to be $65,000 to $85,000 per year (plus 500 hours of additional
operator time).
Financing will be existing City funds dedicated to the drinking water utility.
DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 1

1.3 The relationship of the project to other water system

components.
The water softening system will be operated in parallel with the Greensand Treatment Filters
(manganese treatment). The treated water from each of these systems will be combined to produce
the finished water. The blended water will be disinfected as needed to maintain a chlorine residual
in the distribution system. Currently, all water is treated in the Greensand Filters. Because half of
the flow or more will go to the softening units, this operation mode effectively doubles the capacity
of the Greensand system.
1.4 Statement of change in the physical capacity of the

water system and its ability to serve customers, if
applicable.
The water softening system increases the capacity of the treatment system by 1000 GPM (to
3,170 GPM). However, the system will be operated so as to maintain a finished water (blended)
hardness of 70 mg/L, which will limit the capacity to 1700 GPM (which is less than the current
treatment capacity of 2,170 GPM). The planned addition of a third 500-GPM unit (circa 2019) will
increase total treatment capacity to 2,550 GPM at 70 mg/L hardness.
1.5 Explanation of why the State Environmental Policy Act

(SEPA) does not apply to the project
All work will consist of modifications and additions to the existing water treatment plant and all
work will be inside the existing building or on the building walls. This project does not increase
capacity beyond that already planned for in the Citys Water System Plan. Wastewater discharge will
be to the adjacent City Wastewater Treatment Plant and the discharge will be in compliance with all
pretreatment requirements of the State and the City.
1.6 Summary of source development

This project does not include source development. The City of Ferndale, in December 2011,
converted from using the Nooksack River to groundwater for its public water supply. The City has
three water rights and two wells which currently supply all the Citys drinking water. The Douglas
Well was drilled in the 1990s and the Shop Well has existed since the 1950s. 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 physical
capacity of the two wells is 2,170 GPM. 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. Water pumped from
these wells is conveyed directly to the Water Treatment Plant. Two reservoirs provide a total
storage capacity of 2.7 MG. Reservoir #1 stores 1 MG and serves the main pressure zone; Reservoir
#2 stores 1.7 MG and serves the upper and main pressure zones. The demand is expected to exceed
the source supply sometime after the year 2020. The Maximum Day Demand is projected to equal
the existing well capacity by the year 2028.

1.7 Treatment
Existing Treatment Capacity. The current WDOH approved capacity of the manganese treatment
system (two greensand filters in parallel configuration) is 2,170 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 2028.
2. Planning
The City has an approved Water System Plan.
3. Water Quality
Review of water quality as it relates to the purpose of the proposed project, including results of raw-
and finished-water quality analyses. Include water quality information in the groundwater use
feasibility report and subsequent water sample results.
Hardness. The water chemistry parameters directly related to hardness (and to softening) are
shown in Table 1. 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, though 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 approximately 160 mg/L.
It appears that the hardness levels for both of these wells leveled off at the end of summer 2012
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 brackish groundwater (relic seawater). Brackish groundwater has higher levels (relatively) 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 1 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.

Table 1. 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) - -- -- 116 0.136 --
4/28/2010 (Shop) - -- 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
12/21/12 (Douglas) 12 8.25 228 206 0.222 --
12/21/2012 (Shop) 12 8.25 244 125 0.102 --
4/10/2013 (Douglas) 12 8.20 230 195 0.222 --
4/10/2013 (Shop) 12 8.20 257 119 0.093 --
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). Table 2 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 flush adequately 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) increased in both wells due to drawdown in 2012. The Douglas Well
(650 mg/L) is now above the Secondary MCL of 500 mg/L. The Shop Well (460 mg/L) is near the
SMCL. Because the Douglas Well groundwater has TDS exceeding the SMCL, it needs to be
blended with the Shop 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 at a
minimum, which is not feasible. The TDS increase during 2012 was due to increases in chloride
and sodium mostly, but also to increases in calcium, magnesium, sulfate, and bicarbonate.
Scattered brackish groundwater deposits are known to occur in the western Whatcom County and
especially near the mouth of the Nooksack River. A phenomenon called connate ascension occurs
when a freshwater aquifer overlies brackish connate water. Pumping may cause the connate
water to migrate upward and into the freshwater aquifer. This results in a brackish, briny
contamination similar to the effects of saltwater intrusion. Alternatively, pumping may draw in
higher salinity water laterally from adjacent brackish groundwater. Future changes in well water
salinity cannot be easily predicted. 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 TDS increase).
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 appears to be 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 137-146 mg/L and Shop Well
106-120 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.

Table 2. Major TDS components of groundwater at different points in time.

Sample Total Diss.
Date Solids Conductivity Sodium Chloride Sulfate
mg/l S/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
Douglas Well 4/10/2013 650 1119 137 221 24
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
Shop Well 4/10/2013 464 814 106 88 32
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 1. 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).

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 2. 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, Ferndales 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).

Table 3. 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 4 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 5 gives the results for disinfection chemicals and disinfection
byproducts (DBPs). These results are discussed in the following section.
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.

Table 4. Water chemistry testing results for December 21, 2012 and April 10, 2013.
12/21/2102 4/10/2013
Douglas Shop Blended Douglas Shop Method
Parameter Units Well Well Water Well Well MCL* Limit
Flow GPM 450 750 -- 280 580
pH S.U. 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2
DO (field) mg/L 1.5 1.2 2.2 -- --
Chlorine (field) mg/L -- -- 1 -- --
Total Diss. Solids mg/L 652 454 556 650 464 500 20
Conductivity S/cm 1162 800 940 1199 814 10
Turbidity NTU 0.59 0.14 ND 0.33 0.69 0.1
Hardness mg CaCO3/L 206 125 152 195 119 3
Alkalinity mg CaCO3/L 228 244 237 230 257 1
Metals and other Cations
Aluminum mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 0.2 0.01
Barium mg/L 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.104 0.085 2.00 0.001
Boron mg/L 0.15 0.12 0.14 0.15 0.12 0.05
Calcium mg/L 43.6 25.9 31.8 41.4 24.9 0.5
Iron mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 0.3 0.05
Lead mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 0.015 0.0005
Magnesium mg/L 23.5 14.6 17.6 22.3 13.7 0.5
Manganese (Diss.) mg/L 0.222 0.102 ND 0.222 0.093 0.05 0.001
Manganese (Total) mg/L 0.226 0.106 0.011 -- -- 0.05 0.001
Potassium mg/L 6.2 6.1 5.5 5.5 5.4 0.5
Sodium mg/L 146 120 130 138 106 1
Strontium mg/L 0.29 0.18 0.22 0.266 0.163 0.05
Ammonia mg/L N 0.1 0.18 0 0.12 0.18 0.03
Anions
Arsenic mg/L 0.004 0.006 0.006 0.003 0.004 0.01 0.001
Bromide mg/L 0.88 0.35 0.36 0.88 0.36 0.05
Bicarbonate mg HCO3/L 276 295 287 278 311
Carbonate mg CO3/L 2 2 2 2 2 1.00
Bicarbonate mg CaCO3/L 226 242 235 228 255 1.00
Carbonate mg CaCO3/L 4 4 4 4 4 1.00
Chloride mg/L 218 91 149 221 88 250 1
Fluoride mg/L 0.36 0.25 0.28 0.28 0.19 4/2 0.1
Iodide mg/L ND ND ND -- -- 0.1
Phosphates mg/L P 0.06 0.17 0.13 0.07 0.17 0.01
Silica mg/L SiO2 22 20 20 16 19 0.05
Sulfate mg/L 26 40 35 24 32 250 0.2
* MCL = Maximum Contaminant Level

Table 5. Disinfectants and DBPs in 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 g/L 2.7 3.6 0.5
Bromoform g/L 25.5 52 0.5
Chlorodibromomethane g/L 7.3 9.4 0.5
Chloroform g/L 1.1 1.3 0.5
Total Trihalomethanes g/L 36.6 66.2 80 0.5
Bromochloroacetic Acid g/L 1.1 1.2 0.3
Dibromoacetic Acid g/L 5.9 7.6 0.4
Dichloroacetic Acid g/L 1.0 ND 0.5
Monobromoacetic Acid g/L ND ND 0.5
Monochloroacetic Acid g/L ND ND 0.5
Trichloroacetic Acid g/L ND ND 0.5
Total HAA(5) g/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 chlorine and/or bromine in transit to the lab.
ND Not detected.
3.1.1 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.

3.1.2 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 brackish
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 it is the raw well water that will
be softened (i.e., not the effluent from the greensand filters), then the softening method must
also remove manganese. 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.
3.1.3 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. Ferndales 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.
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 (see Table 6).
3.1.4 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. The presence of
trivalent cations (Al and Fe) can greatly increase the scaling effect of silica.
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/or adding an anti-scalant chemical.

4. Water Quantity and Water Rights

This project report will only reference the water rights information provided in the RH2 project
report and the Water System Plan.
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, further increasing the pumping rate from the Douglas Well may further
increase the levels of hardness and TDS in the pumped water.
Water Demand. Table 6 shows the existing and projected water demand (assuming 2.78 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 6 also includes 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 5,358, 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 the alternatives evaluation is:
Maximum Daily Flow = 1600 GPM
This is sufficient to meet Maximum Day Demand through approximately 2017 and Maximum
Month Demand through 2031.
The final design flow used for the selected alternative is:
Maximum Daily Flow = 1700 GPM
This is sufficient to meet Maximum Day Demand through approximately 2019 and Maximum
Month Demand through 2034.

Table 6. Water usage existing and projected, assuming 2.78 percent annual growth
DEMAND TYPE UNITS YEAR
2012 2022 2032

Average Annual Demand MGD 1.07 1.41 1.86
Maximum Month Demand MGD 1.50 1.97 2.60
Maximum Day Demand MGD 2.04 2.68 3.52
Average Annual Demand GPM 744 979 1,288
Maximum Month Demand GPM 1,042 1,371 1,804
Maximum Day Demand GPM 1,414 1,861 2,448
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 75 feet lower in elevation than the
Shop Well screened intake. Because salinity often increases with depth, the disparity between the
two wells is not atypical.
5. Analysis of Alternatives
A comparison of alternative solutions and the rationale for selecting a proposed alternative is
required for all types of projects (WAC 246-290-110(4)(c)). The comparison will include life-cycle
cost evaluations (initial costs plus on-going operations and maintenance costs).
This analysis will include nanofiltration, ion exchange, lime softening, and source blending.
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
5.1 Ion Exchange with Sodium as Regenerant
5.1.1 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 3. 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).
Table 7. 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 magnesiums, 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.
5.1.2 Benefits and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange with Sodium as

Regenerant
Table 8. 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)
5.1.3 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 1600 GPM total flow with no backup unit. Three
cation exchange tanks would give 2500 GPM total flow with no backup unit or 1600 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 1600 GPM or about 2.3 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.

5.2 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. One anion
attaches 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 4. Illustrations of Ion Exchange using acid as a regenerant
Schematic of ion exchange process Schematic of ion exchange column

5.2.2 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. 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.

5.2.3 Benefits and Disadvantages of Ion Exchange with Acid as Regenerant
Table 9. 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 10. Benefits and disadvantages of full deionization (cation and anion exchange).
Benefits Disadvantages (compared to softening only)
Same as in Table 9 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

5.2.4 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 1600 GPM total flow with no backup unit. Three
cation exchange tanks would give 2500 GPM total flow with no backup unit or 1600 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 1600 GPM or about 2.3 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.

5.3 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 11).
Table 11. 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% Figure 5. Schematic of Reverse Osmosis Membrane
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 (see Figure 5. Schematic of Reverse Osmosis Membrane). 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
rejected concentrate 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. However, 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
and 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. Therefore, increasing recovery rate
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, so there is a upper

limit to recovery rate. Based on the relatively good quality of the well water, a recovery rate of
87.5% or more should be achievable if an appropriate anti-scalant is added to the feedwater.
5.3.2 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.
Skid-mounted 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 8 feet each. The cleaning solution tanks and scale control dosing
equipment would require about 150 square feet. The system would include continuous
monitoring of pH, 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 passes 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.
An anti-scalant will need to be added to the feedwater to prevent scale formation on the
membranes. Anti-scalants are large molecules that 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
foulants do not precipitate from concentrated water 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 feedwater 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.

5.3.3 Benefits of nanofiltration water treatment
Table 12. Benefits and disadvantages of nanofiltration
Removes 90% to 95% 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 40-50% overall), More susceptible to fouling due to the
which improves taste. concentrated nature of reject water
Less chlorine use (about 40-50% 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 and 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/or 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

5.3.4 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 less than 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 1600 GPM total flow with no backup
unit. Three nanofiltration skids would give 2400 GPM total flow with no backup unit or 1600
with one backup unit. Each skid would contain virtually all of the equipment and would
measure about 23 feet by 8 feet. The cleaning/dosing solution tanks and equipment would
require about 16 feet by 8 feet.
The amount of water produced using 1750 GPM of well flow would be about 1600 GPM or
2.3 MGD. The total waste (assuming 3% waste from the greensand) would be about
140 GPM (about 8%).
These units would be installed in parallel with 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 anti-scalants prior to introduction into the
membrane units. The feedwater to the membranes will have to be pressurized to about 70-
140 PSI with booster pumps.
The DBPs would likely be reduced by about 40-50%. Total chlorine usage would be reduced
by about 30-40%.
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 less than for ion exchange using acid as
a regenerant. See Cost Estimate section.

5.4 Lime Softening

5.4.1 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.
5.4.2 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.
5.5 Conclusions for Alternatives Analysis

Cation exchange using mineral acid is a feasible option for softening water from the Citys 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
Citys 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 87.5 percent, membrane fouling is a concern and will need to be
well controlled with the addition of anti-scalant.
All other treatment methods are deemed infeasible or, as in the case of sodium ion exchange,
undesirable.
The design flow of 1600 GPM (for all alternatives) assumes 160 mg/L hardness and that 50 percent
of this flow bypasses softening. This design flow is sufficient to meet Maximum Day Demand
through 2017 or Peak Month Demand through 2031, while keeping hardness at 70 mg/L. If well
water hardness rises, then the produced water hardness will also rise. For example, at 175 mg/L
hardness and a flow of 1600 GPM, treated water hardness would to increase to 87 mg/L (which is
generally still an acceptable level) during the higher flow periods. Alternatively, the proportion of
softened water could be increased by increasing the softening system design flow.
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.
6. Design Criteria and Engineering Calculations

6.1 Pipe Size and Pressure Requirements
The final combined design flow for the NF system and greensand system is 1700 GPM. The NF
system will produce up to 1000 GPM of treated water using two identical 50-GPM units (space and
connections will be provided for one additional 500 GPM unit). The target recovery rate for the NF is
89%. To achieve an 89% recovery rate 3 stages are required. The configuration and process
characteristics of one 500-GPM unit are shown in Table 13.
The well pumps will supply water to the system at a pressure of approximately 28 psi. This is enough
pressure for prefiltering and to charge the nanofiltration pressure pumps. The pressure drop across
the prefilter is 0 psi. The internal flows and pressures for a single 500-GPM NF unit are shown in
Table 13. The system feed pressure will be nominally 135 psi at 560 GPM; head loss through each
stage will result in a final pressure of 85 psi for the waste brine discharge. Permeate will flow by
gravity (not under pressure) to the chlorine contact chamber inlet piping, which is located just
beneath the floor of the Water Treatment Plant.
The piping to, from, and within the NF system will have pipe friction pressure losses close to
zero. Pressure loss is almost exclusively within the membrane elements - approximately 50 PSI
through 3 stages.
The maximum future flows to and from the NF system are 1,680 GPM and 1,500 GPM,
respectively, for which 10-inch piping is sufficient to keep head losses below 1 PSI.
The maximum flows to and from each NF unit are 560 GPM and 500 GPM, respectively, for
which 6-inch piping is sufficient to keep head losses below 1 PSI.
The maximum flow to each pressure vessel is 55 GPM, respectively, for which 1.5-inch or 2-inch
piping is sufficient to keep head losses below 1 PSI.
The Clean in-Place (System) will require a 380 GPM pump. At 65 PSI the piping would be 6-inch
diameter. At 70 PSI the piping would be 4-inch diameter. The waste discharge piping would be
6-inch diameter.
A permeate flush system will require a small pump and controls to direct permeate into the
pressure vessels at the onset of any shutdown periods.

Table 13. NF Unit Configuration and Characteristics

Membrane Element Type TMH20A-440 (440 sq in)
Membrane Element Size 8-inch diameter x 40-inch long
Stage Number 1 2 3
Membrane Elements (total no.) 66 36 18
Elements per Pressure Vessel 6 6 6
Pressure Vessels (total no.) 11 6 3
Recovery rate (89% total) % 61% 53% 41%

Feed flow GPM 562 219 104
Product flow (500 GPM total) GPM 342 115 42
Average flux GFD 17 13 8
Brine flow GPM 219 104 62
Feed pressure PSI 135 116 99
P elements PSI 19 17 14
P manifolds+pipe PSI 0 0 0
Brine Pressure PSI 116 99 85
Permeate Pressure PSI 0 0 0
Feed TDS mg/L 657 1668 3467
Permeate TDS mg/L 10 41 148
Lead element
Feed flow GPM 51.1 43.9 34.7
Product flow GPM 5.7 4.5 3.0
Product TDS mg/L 5.3 22.4 88.9
Flux rate GFD 18.7 14.7 9.8
Last element
Product Flow GPM 4.6 3.2 1.7
Product TDS mg/L 19 75 251
Brine/Product Ratio ratio 4.3 6.5 11.9
Brine Flow (61 GPM total GPM 19.9 20.8 20.6
Net Driving Pressure PSI 100 67 36

6.2 Water Treatment Plant Capacity

The nanofiltration water softening treatment system will have capacity of 1000 GPM for the initial
phase (with 2 units) and 1500 GPM for the final phase (with three units). As shown in Table 14, with
the initial two NF units, the MDD blended water hardness can be kept to 70 mg/L until 2019. With
three units, MDD blended water hardness can be kept to 66 mg/L until 2032. The MDD blended
water hardness would not exceed 70 mg/L until 2034.
Table 14. Capacity of Water Softening System for Maximum Day Demand
DEMAND TYPE UNITS YEAR
2012 2019 2022 2032
Maximum Day Demand GPM 1,414 1,714 1,861 2,448

Raw Water Hardness mg/L 170 170 170 170
Water softener flow (2 units) GPM 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Minimum Blended Hardness (2 units)* mg/L 51 71 79 101
Water softener flow (3 units) GPM 1,500 1,500 1,500
Minimum Blended Hardness (3 units)* mg/L 22 34 66
* NF Permeate hardness = 1 mg/L
6.3 Softening System Components

Raw water connection and isolation valve, 10-inch diameter
Feed pumping, each NF Unit:
1. One 5-micron pre-filter, sized for 900 GPM @ less than 5 psi head- loss with clean filter
2. Piping, PVC and 304SS
3. 1 booster pump, vertical inline (approx. 90 HP, capacity 500 gpm @ 150 psi, VFD)
4. Check and isolation valves
5. Raw water conductivity meter
NF System Components, each NF Unit:
1. Feed water flow meter
2. Pressure safety valve
3. Temperature and pH transmitter
4. 1 pass membrane array with no recirculation
a. Stage 1 11 FRP vessels, with 6, 8 x 40 membranes elements
b. Stage 2 6 FRP vessels, with 6, 8 x 40 membrane elements
c. Stage 3 3 FRP vessels, with 6, 8 x 40 membrane elements
d. Throttling valve for concentrate to waste
e. Stage 1 permeate throttling
f. Stage 2 permeate throttling

g. Direct reading rotameter for each concentrate and permeate stream.

5. Permeate discharge check valve
6. Automatic concentrate purge control and solenoid valve
7. Permeate flush system
CIP system
1. CIP chemical preparation tank (1000 gal) with 2,000W heater
2. CIP waste use existing underground waste discharge vault
3. CIP pump, VFD, 350-400gpm @60 psi
4. Flow meter
5. One 5-micron cartridge filter
6. Acid tolerant piping and valves
Instrumentation
1. Feed
a. Pressure, Pressure transducer and indicators (4)
b. pH/temp, sensor/transmitter (1)
c. Flow, Magnetic flow meter (1)
d. Conductivity transmitter (1)
2. Permeate, each unit
a. Pressure, Pressure transducer and indicators (1)
b. pH, sensor/transmitter (1)
c. Flow, direct reading Rotameters (3)
d. Conductivity transmitter (1)
3. Concentrate, each unit
a. Pressure transducer and indicators (1)
b. Waste Flow: Magnetic flow meter (1)
Anti-scalant Systems (two units)

1. Anti-scalant: Avista Vitec 4000 (or equal product with silica anti-scalant)
2. Dose: 2.0 mg/L = 0.048 GPH per 400 GPM @ 87% recovery) (undiluted)
3. Dose: 3.0 mg/L = 0.064 GPH per 400 GPM @ 90% recovery) (undiluted)
4. Dosing pump with calibration column and multifunction valve, and injection ports
(capacity of 0.01 GPH to 0.1 GPH @25 psi).
5. Integration with SCADA
Other Chemical Systems

1. NaOH for finish water pH balancing Use existing system
2. Sodium hypochlorite for disinfection Use existing system
6.4 Electrical and Control

Sufficient electrical power is available using reserve power plus extra power available after removal
of two 50 HP pumps feeding the filters in 2011. Electrical, controls, and instrumentation needs
include:
1. 3-phase 460V power

a. Feed Pumps: 2 x 75 HP (plus 1 x 75 HP future)

b. CIP Pump: 1 x 25 HP
2. 1-phase 110V power:
a. Valves, instrumentation, lighting
b. Anti-scalant pumps (2; plus 1 future)
c. CIP Tank heater
3. PLC for fully automatic operation (e.g., Allen Bradley MicroLogix with Panelview 1000
HMI)
4. MCC Panel
5. SCADA integration
7. Capital Cost Estimate

The estimated capital cost of the water softening system is:
Table 15. Estimated Cost of Capital Improvements

EQUIPMENT AND DESIGN FLOWS
Number of Treatment Units 2
Design Flow of NF Units, GPM 1000
Design Flow, MGD 1440
CAPITAL COSTS
Item Cost
Pipes and Valves $100,000
Instrumentation and Controls $200,000
Cartridge Prefiltration $10,000
Anti-Scalant Feed Systems $30,000
System Feed Pumps $170,000
Nanofilter Membrane Elements $177,000
Membrane Skid with Filter Housing $240,000
Clean-In-Place (CIP) System $60,000
Online Instruments $15,000
Miscellaneous $100,000
Subtotal Equipment $1,102,000
Operator Training $4,000
Ancillary Capital Costs $250,000
Subtotal capital costs $1,356,000
Engineering $150,000
Contingency $250,000
Tax $136,510
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS $1,892,510
TOTAL CAPITAL COSTS rounded to $1000 $1,893,000

8. Legal Considerations
There are no legal considerations for this project. All work will consist of modifications and additions
to the existing water treatment plant and all work will be inside the existing building or on the
building walls. This project does not increase capacity beyond that already planned for in the Citys
Water System Plan. Wastewater discharge will be to the adjacent City Wastewater Treatment Plant
and the discharge will be in compliance with all pretreatment requirements of the State and the
City.
9. Operations and Maintenance Considerations

9.1 Routine operations and maintenance tasks and
frequencies for the water softening system
Daily Tasks
1. Keep daily log and chart of operating conditions (pressures, flows, Conductivity, pH,
blending ratio).
2. Ensure the system is properly operating and feeding anti-scalant.
a. Verify flow, conductivity, and pH are normal.
b. Inspect the anti-scalant tank and metering pumps assembly for leaks.
c. Check the liquid levels in the tank.
d. Ensure the system is properly operating and feeding chemical.
3. Collect finished water samples for hardness testing.
Weekly Tasks
1. Review operating conditions chart trends for problems and to see if cleaning is needed.
2. Chemical In-Place (CIP) Cleaning System
a. Inspect storage tanks, fittings and gaskets for wear and tear.
Monthly Tasks
1. Reorder anti-scalant and cleaning chemicals, as necessary.
2. Perform chemical cleaning of softening system if needed.
Semi-Annual Tasks
1. Chemical Feed
a. Change the valve cartridge assembly on the metering pumps.

b. Inspect the metering pumps and replace if necessary.

c. Check instrument calibrations (flow, pH, Conductivity).
Annual Tasks
1. Change the oil in all metering pumps.
2. Change the valve cartridge assembly on the sodium hypochlorite metering pump.
3. Inspect the metering pumps and replace if necessary
4. Check instrument calibrations (flow, pH, Conductivity)
9.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs

The major operating costs are power, membrane element replacements, and anti-scalant chemical.
Additional labor requirements are roughly 1 hour per day for daily tasks and 500 hours per year for
all tasks.
Table 16. Estimated Cost of Operation and Maintenance

Item Annual Cost
Anti-Scalant (2 mg/L x 600,000 GPD x 8.34 x $4.50/lb x 125%) $20,548
Clean-in-Place Chemicals $1,500
NF Membrane Replacement (216 mem. x $590/6 years x 125%) $28,320
Repair, Maintenance and Replacement $1,500
Process Monitoring $2,000
Power ($0.08/KW-hr x 840 KW-hr/day x 365 days) $24,528
Total Annual O&M Cost $78,396
9.3 Certified Operator

In order to determine operator certification requirements, every proposed purification plant must
be classified based on the Association of Boards of Certification (ABC) Purification Plant Criteria. The
criteria breakdown for the Groundwater Treatment Plant is as follows.
1. The City serves a population of 11,080 people 2 points

2. Design flow is 2 million gallons per day (MGD) per average day 4 points
3. Water supply is groundwater 3 points
4. Groundwater has elevated manganese levels 5 points
5. The City will chlorinates with sodium hypochlorite 5 points
6. The chemical treatment process may include pH adjustment 5 points
7. The filtration process will consist of greensand and nanofiltration 20 points
8. The City will dispose all process residuals to sanitary sewer 3 points
9. The facility process operations will be extensively automated 6 points

A total of 53 points classifies this plant as Class II, which has a point range between 31 and 55 points.
This plant will require a Water Distribution Manager 2 (WDM2) and a Water Treatment Plant
Operator 2 (WTPO2) to supervise daily operations. The Citys current staff is certified to operate this
plant.
10. Start-up, Testing, and Operations

Describe the general methods and schedules for start-up, testing and operations. Methods should
identify specific standards and the persons involved.
Prior to start-up, the system will be disinfected and pressure tested per DOH and AWWA standards.
Prior to start-up, the Contractor will provide operations and maintenance manuals for all
equipment.
Prior to any discharge of softened water to the chlorine contact chamber (and hence to the
distribution system), the treated water will be tested for compliance with water quality standards.
Start-up services will be provided by the Contractor and their certified and trained technicians, with
assistance by the Engineer and Water Treatment Plant operators. The proper functioning of all
components and the performance of each unit will be verified prior to discharge to the chlorine
contact chamber.
The start-up schedule is as follows:
Task Begin Finish
Final Punchlist na Day 1
Pressure Test Day 2 Day 2
Disinfection Day 2 Day 3
Start System Day 3 na
Verify System Components Day 3 Day 4
Collect and Test Samples to Verify

Performance and Compliance Day 5 Day 12
Discharge to distribution system Day 13 na
11. Training Requirements

There are no specific training requirements. However, the Contractors certified technician will
provide 20 to 40 hours of on-site training in operation maintenance and troubleshooting. The Water

Treatment Plant Operators already have three months of experience operating a 1/16 scale pilot
system.
12. Treatment System Reliability

Treatment reliability means the failure of any single component will not prevent a treatment
facility from meeting drinking water standards.
If any single component of the water softening system fails, the facility will still meet primary
drinking water standards. If one of the two (or three in the future) NF units goes offline, water
discharged to the distribution system will still be in compliance with all drinking water standards.
The system has two identical units operating in parallel. If one is offline, the treatment plant can still
meet the ADD flow demand for the MDD flow demand, in this situation, the hardness and TDS
would become elevated but the produced water would still be potable.
The following alarms at a minimum will be online 24 hours:
Item Alarm Type Response

Feed Pressure Alarm, shut down This alarm indicates that the pressure to the
softening system is too low.
This alarm indicates that the primary
Primary Pressure Alarm pressure in the softening system is too low or
too high.
Brine Pressure Alarm This alarm indicates that the brine pressure
is too low or too high.
High or low pH indicates a malfunction. The
High or Low pH Alarm, shut down City will need to troubleshoot the problem
before the system can start up again.
13. Chemical Overfeed and Backflow Prevention

The NF system chemical feed consists solely of anti-scalant polymer, which cannot pass through the
NF membranes into the drinking water, unless one of the membranes ruptures.
During Chemical-In-Place cleaning (with acid), the system is isolated from the distribution system
with isolation valves. In addition, continuous reading pH meter with alarm will alert the operator
(24 hours a day) if the pH of the NF system or the finished water deviates from acceptable limits and
will automatically shut down the system. Turbidity and Conductivity meters will alert the operator of
any breakthrough of concentrate into the permeate stream.

14. Pilot Study Results

The Pilot Study Report is attached as Appendix A. The pilot study operated for three months at
approximately 21 hours per day. The anti-scalant Vitec 4000 was fed at 3 mg/L. The system operated
without any significant change in performance. There was one change in operating conditions during
the study, which was an 8 percent increase in total dissolved solids concentration halfway through
the study due to an operator adjustment of source well blending ratio (this resulted in a small
increase in feed pressure as would be expected). A CIP cleaning was performed on the second to last
day of operation. No significant change in performance was observed following cleaning. The overall
performance of the system was better than expected hardness was reduced to zero and TDS was
reduced to about 10 mg/L at the target 87% recovery.
A taste test was performed by a panel from Seattle Public Utilities on the unsoftened water and the
unsoftened water blended with softened water. The blended water had a superior taste compared
to the unsoftened water. The panel subjectively rated the blended water as I am sure that I could
accept this water as my everyday drinking water.
15. Summary
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 the alternatives evaluation (1600 GPM total flow to distribution system)
meets Maximum Day Demand through 2017 (i.e., 9 years of 2.78% annual population growth) or
Peak Month Demand for 18 years (through 2030). The groundwater chemistry is compatible with
any of the three softening methods evaluated.
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 because 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 somewhat more costly to build and operate than a one- or two-stage system.

Both IEX and NF will effectively soften the water. For either of these alternatives, about half or more
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 70-80 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 more electricity
IEX uses substantial quantities of acid
IEX and NF System Advantages Comparison

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

manganese). manganese). Alkalinity loss doesnt affect WWTP.
Reduces TDS by about 15%, which may Reduces TDS by about 50% overall, which
improve taste slightly. improves taste.
Less chlorine use (about 30% less), which Less chlorine use (about 50% less) and removes
reduces DBPs by 10-20% and improves taste. DBP precursors, which reduces DBPs by 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 has higher capital costs but lower operating costs.
NF 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) $1.2M to $1.5M
Nanofiltration $1.8M to $2.1M
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

Annual O&M Cost
for 2 Units
Softening Method
IEX (acid regenerant) $75K to $90K
Nanofiltration $65K to $85K
Nanofiltration (NF) is the recommended softening system because it provides a good softening
system, the best overall treatment, the best improvement in taste, can better address potential
future compliance issues, and requires less operator effort.
The pilot test of the NF softening system operated for 92 days with no decrease in performance.
This is very good indication that the system will work well with a low level of maintenance over
time.
The water softening system will be installed in the existing Water Treatment Plant building. The
building has enough room for three 500-GPM units and associated equipment and piping. The
planned total of three 500-GPM units will allow for at least 2,550 GPM of capacity. A fourth unit
could be installed as well. The water treatment plant does not have space for a fifth unit.
Construction bid documents will be prepared in the fall of 2013, Construction of the system (with 2
NF units) will begin in early 2014 and be completed end of the summer of 2014. The third NF unit
will likely be installed in the year 2018 or later.

APPENDIX A
DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B
/EdZ/DPILOT STUDY REPORT

302 Lake Hazeltine Drive
Chaska, MN 55318 USA
Phone 800-240-3330
Phone 952-448-4884
Fax 952-448-4886
Web WIGEN.COM
REVERSE OSMOSIS PILOT STUDY

PRELIMINARY REPORT
CITY OF FERNDALE
WASHINGTON
August 2013
PREPARED FOR:
WILSON ENGINEERING
DENVER, CO LOS ANGELES, CA MINNEAPOLIS, MN PHOENIX, AZ PITTSBURGH, PA

Corporate Headquarters:
302 Lake Hazeltine Drive
Chaska, MN 55318 USA
Phone 800-240-3330
Phone 952-448-4884
Fax 952-448-4886
Web WIGEN.COM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 1
MEMBRANE SKID CONFIGURATION .................................................................. 3
RO PILOT SYSTEM RESULTS ............................................................................ 6
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 16
APPENDICES
1. RO Projections
2. Laboratory Data
3. Log Data
4. Autopsy Report (In final report)
DENVER, CO LOS ANGELES, CA MINNEAPOLIS, MN PHOENIX, AZ PITTSBURGH, PA

SUMMARY
Wigen Water Technologies was contracted to provide a reverse osmosis pilot system to
evaluate the use of low-energy thin-film composite membrane technology as a treatment
method for the City of Ferndale groundwater supp ly. The pilot system was started up June 7,
2013 and after sorting out som e mechanical issues, operated continuously from June 14, 2013.
This interim pilot study report covers data collected up to August 11, 2013.
The pilot plant design was based on water analys es provided by Wilson Engineering shown in
Table 1. The pilot RO system was designed to closely simulate the flux rate, crossflow,
individual element recovery and overall system recovery of a full scale 3-stage system. The
preliminary water quality data used for perfor mance projections for the pilot system using
Toray TMG10 membranes is shown in Table 1.
The system was started up by Wigen Water Technologies personnel between June 7-14 and
City of Ferndale operators were trained on operation and data collection. The pilot system was
operated using a dedicated supply from one of t he Citys wells. The Citys operators recorded
all data and collected RO feed, RO perm eate, and RO concentrate water sam ples throughout
the pilot study. Water samples were analyzed by Edge Analytical Laboratories. Data was also
logged automatically by the RO PLC. The pilot plant was started up operating at a recovery of
87% as shown in the pr ojection in Appendix 1. Due to silic a levels in the f eed water and the
high target recovery rate, a silica specific anti-scalant, Vitec 4000 (Avi sta Technologies, Inc.),
was selected to achieve the targeted recovery rate.
On start-up, due to inco rrect calibration of the concentrate flow meter, the con centrate flow
was lower than expected which resulted in the pilot being operated at a recovery well above
87%. At this recovery the pressure drop quickly built up across the third stage due to scaling on
the membranes. A CIP was perform ed on the membranes on June 14 th, and the concentrate
flow was corrected to provide the desired 87% recovery. The CIP consisted of a single acid
clean of the m embranes at pH 2. Following this cleaning the interstage pressured returned to
start-up levels indicating the scaling had been removed. Very stable permeate flows and
conductivity levels through the pilot period demonstrate that there has been no fouling and that
the pilot design is satisfactory for scale-up for the full-scale system.
1
PreliminaryROPilotStudyReport
CityofFerndale,WA
SUMMARY
Table 1: Projected Feed Water Quality
Parameter Value
Fluoride, mg/l 0.28
Bicarbonate, mg/l as CaCO3 275
Sodium, mg/l 132
Silica, mg/l as SiO2 21
Potassium, mg/l 6
pH 8.2
Sulfate, mg/l 35
Magnesium, mg/l 18.5
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), mg/l 657
Chloride, mg/l 133
Calcium, mg/l 33.3
Boron, mg/l 0
Strontium, mg/L 0.23
Barium, mg/l 0.08
Ammonia Nitrogen, mg/l as N 0.14
Nitrate Nitrogen, mg/l as N 0
Iron, mg/l NA
Manganese, mg/l NA
2
CityofFerndale,WA
MEMBRANE SKID CONFIGURATION
RO MEMBRANE SKID CONFIGURATION
Figure 1: RO Pilot Plant Installed at Ferndale WTP
The RO pilot system was designed to produce 30 gpm of RO permeate at a recovery

of 87%. The RO had a total of 36 Toray TMH10A 4 diameter x 40 long
membranes each containing 86 ft 2 of membrane surface area. The m embranes had a
nominal flow of 2,400 gpd at a test pressure of 100 psi and had a nominal NaCl
rejection of 99.3%. The system operated at an average flux of 13.95 gfd (gallons per
square foot per day). A 5-m icron prefilter was provided upstream of the RO to f ilter
particulates that may foul the membranes over time.
The membranes were configured in a 3-3-2- 2-1-1, 3-long array in order to keep the
equipment size to a minimum. This banking configuration gives the same results as a
3-2-1, 6-long array. A 6-long array will be used in the full scale equ ipment. Many
systems are piloted on a much smaller scale and sometimes require that the
concentrate be recycled in order to maintain adequate cross flow throughout the
system. This can change the feed water quality significantly depending on how much
concentrate is recycled, m aking it difficult to predict how the full scale system will
operate. Concentrate recycle was not used during this study so the results should be
very similar to what will be achieved by the full scale system. The results should also
3
CityofFerndale,WA
offer an accurate representation of the need for m embrane cleanings and cartridge
filter replacements.
RO PRETREATMENT CHEMICALS
The RO pilot system included a chemical metering pump for the addition of
antiscalant. Vitec 4000, a product of Avista Technologies, was used as the
antiscalant. This antiscalant is designed to inhibit silica scaling at higher
concentrations than typical antiscalants which was necessary to achieve the high
recovery rate of 87%. Antiscalants are surface-active materials that interfere with
precipitation reactions using three mechanisms; threshold inhibition, crystal
modification and dispersion. As crystals begin to form at the subm icroscopic level,
negative groups located on the antiscalant molecule attack the positive charges on
scale nuclei interrupting the electronic balance that is necessary to propagate growth
of the crystal. The resulting effect is that precipitants that would normally fall out of
solution and deposit on the membrane surface stay in solution and are removed in the
concentrate stream.
Because of the small amounts of antiscalant needed for the low flows involved in this
pilot study, a 10% solution was used so that a reasonable frequency could be set on
the chemical pump. A 3 mg/l dose of Vitec 4000 was used in this study.
The chemical pump was contro lled automatically by th e RO PLC. When the inle t
valve opened, the pump was turned on and began pumping the prescribed dosage into
the RO feed stream just prior to the cartridge filter.
INSTRUMENTATION
To monitor the performance of the RO system, the following instrumentation was

provided on the skid.
Pre-filter pressure (gauge and transmitter)

Post-filter Pressure (gauge and transmitter)
Pump Pressure (gauge)
Primary Pressure (gauge and transmitter)
Interstage #1 and #2 Pressure (gauge)
Final Pressure (gauge and transmitter)
Permeate Pressure (gauge and transmitter)
Concentrate Pressure (gauge)
Permeate Flow (transmitter)
4
CityofFerndale,WA
Concentrate Flow (transmitter)

Feed pH (transmitter)
Feed Conductivity (transmitter)
Permeate Conductivity (transmitter)
The instrumentation provided on the pilot skid is identical to the full-scale units.
The pilot RO was supp lied with a variab le speed drive on the high pressure pump.
The concentrate flow was adjus ted manually by the operator using the concentrate
throttling valve. Perm eate flow was incr eased/decreased automatically by the high
pressure pump VFD and the concentrate flow was then adjusted using the concentrate
throttling valve. On th e full scale units, a VFD will m odulate the pu mp speed to
control the output pressure to achieve the desired permeate flow. The concentrate
valve can be automated or adjusted manually to achieve the desired recovery of 87%
on the full scale system.
CLEAN IN PLACE SYSTEM (CIP)
A CIP system consisting of a pum p, 65 gallon tank and 5kW heat er was provided to
test the effectiven ess of clean ing the RO membranes. The pump was designed to
produce 30 gpm at 60 psig. The skid was provided with valves that enable each stage
of the RO to be cleaned independently at a flow of 10 gpm per vessel using either
high or low pH cleaners.
PROJECTED PERFORMANCE
Attached in Appendix 1 to this report is a detailed analysis of the projected hydraulic

and chemical performance of the pilot RO system. The data was taken from software
based projections using the pre liminary raw water f eed conditions and the
configuration of the pilot RO and preliminary design data for the full scale system.
The projections were calculated using modeling software supplied by Toray, the
membrane manufacturer.
5
CityofFerndale,WA
RO PILOT SYSTEM RESULTS
RO RECORDED DATA
The following table contains a statistical analysis of the RO perform ance data that was recorded
during the pilot study from June 14 to Augus t 11, 2013. The normalized permeate flow and
conductivity was calcu lated based on startup conditions. The formulas used to normalize the
data will be discussed in the next section.
Parameter Average Minimum Maximum Std Dev

Prefilter Pressure (psi) 17.15 16.00 19.00 0.90
Post Filter Pressure (psi) 16.10 14.00 18.00 1.08
Prefilter Pressure Drop (psi) 1.04 0.00 4.00 1.47
Primary Pressure (psi) 143.51 140.00 147.00 1.65
Permeate Pressure (psi) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Interstage #1 Pressure (psi) 110.65 104.00 114.00 1.72
Interstage #2 Pressure (psi) 96.78 87.00 110.00 2.28
Final Pressure (psi) 85.15 81.00 91.00 1.67
Machine Pressure Drop (psid) 58.37 50.00 61.00 1.41
Temp (F) 52.45 52.00 53.00 0.50
Temperature Correction Factor 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.00
Perm Flow (gpm) Qp 31.04 30.00 32.00 0.47
Conc Flow (gpm) Qc 4.77 4.60 7.00 0.22
Recy Flow (gpm) Qr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Feed Cond (uS) Cf 1018.89 833.00 1087.00 45.65
Perm Cond TDS (uS)Cp 13.95 12.00 15.00 0.72
Conc Cond (uS) Cc 7573.05 5166.57 8182.70 424.39
Avg Cond (uS) (Cf+Cc)/2 4295.97 3077.29 4621.85 230.90
Recovery Qp/(Qp+Qc) 86.69% 81.08% 87.19% 0.59%
% Passage Cp/Cavg 0.33% 0.27% 0.42% 0.017%
Conc of Feed-Concentrate (uS) Cfc 2370.72 1944.54 2522.33 110.66
Perm. Norm. Flow (gpm) 31.11 29.34 32.43 0.54
Normalized Permeate Conductivity (uS) 12.04 10.06 13.56 0.52
6
CityofFerndale,WA
LAB ANALYSIS DATA
Grab samples were taken from the RO feed, permeate and Concentrate streams regularly
and sent to Edge Analytical Laboratories for analysis. The range of the laboratory
results taken up to July 9, 2013 are reported in Table 2 below for all stream s. This data
will be interpreted and discussed in the analysis section of this report. All of the
laboratory test results are included in Appendix 2.
Table 2: Summary of Laboratory Analyses
Analyte ConcentrationRange
Feed Permeate Concentrate
pH
Alkalinity(mg/lasCaCO3) 244251 3.217.19 21052155
Hardness(mg/lasCaCO3) 145200.1 ND0.1 11901466.5
Sodium(mg/l) 2.63.0
Bromide(mg/l) 0.0130.014
AmmoniaNitrogen,mg/lasN ND
Sulfate(mg/l) 28 ND0.03 239248
Chloride(mg/l) 148167 2.32.5 2041374
Silica(mg/lasSiO2)
Arsenic(mg/l) 0.03 ND0.0003 0.0230.025
Iron(mg/l) ND0.01 ND 0.06
Manganese(mg/l) ND
TDS(mg/l) 551568 ND 47094819
7
CityofFerndale,WA
DATA NORMALIZATION
The data recorded by the operators is considered raw data. Before any meaningful analysis of
the ROs perform ance can be conducted, the data must first be normalized. Perm eate flow
through a mem brane is affected by water temperature, applied pressure and osmotic pressure.
Normalization of the data to startup conditions must be perform ed to compensate for day to day
changes of these parameters. After normalization, meaningful trends can be spotted in the
operation of the RO system.
For the full scale system, daily op erating data w ill be recorded directly into a no rmalization
spreadsheet that will plo t the normalized trends and allow the operators to m ake determinations
about potential problems and/or the need for m embrane cleaning. Generally, when norm alized
permeate flow decreases by 15% or normalized permeate conductivity increases by 15%, a
cleaning is needed.
The equations used to norm alize the data are discussed on the following tables. A spreadsheet
provided with the full scale equipment will calc ulate the v alues automatically. To understand
what these numbers mean in regard to the pe rformance of the RO sy stem, a good understanding
of the theory behind normalization is required and is outlined on the following pages.
8
CityofFerndale,WA
NORMALIZED PERMEATE FLOW
EQUATION:
Qs = Pfs Ps Pps - Pfcs - fcs TCFs Qo
Pfo Po Ppo - Pfco - fco TCFo
Variables Definition Source

Qs Standardized Flow (gpm) See Above
Qo Operating Flow Rate (gpm) Manual Data
Pfs Standardized Feed Pressure (psi) Start-Up Info
Pfo Operating Feed Pressure (psi) Manual Data
Po Standardized Machine Pressure Drop (psi) Pprimarystd - Pfinalstd
Ps Operating Machine Pressure Drop (psi) Pprimaryop - Pfinalop
Pps Standardized Permeate Pressure (psi) Start-Up Info
Ppo Operating Permeate Pressure (psi) Manual Data
fcs Standardized Osmotic Pressure of Feed-Concentrate Concentration See Notes
fco Operating Osmotic Pressure of Feed-Concentrate Concentration See Notes
TCFs Standardized Temperature Correction Factor Table
TCFo Operating Temperature Correction Factor Table
NOTES: Standardized = standard condition = STARTUP values

Osmotic pressures as of now are considered nearly the same
and therefore get factored out to a value of 1.
fc =((0.0117 x Cfc) - 34 / 14.23 X (T + 320)/345)/.0689 (psi) For Cfc > 20000 mg/l
fc = (Cfc x (T+320) / 491000)/.0689 (psi) For Cfc < 20000 mg/l
Cfc = Concentration of the feed-concentrate
Cfc = Cf X (ln (1/(1-Y))/Y

Y = recovery ratio = product flow/ feed flow
Cf = Conductivity of feed (uS)
9
CityofFerndale,WA
NORMALIZED PERMEATE CONDUCTIVITY
Assume both values are the same. The source water and the machine recovery
don't tend to change enough to affect normalization and therefore = 1
EQUATION:
Pfo Po Ppo - fcs- po Cfcs
Cps = Cpo
Pfs Ps Pps - fcs - ps Cfco
Assume that the osmotic pressure of the
permeate stream is neglible and therefore = 0
Variables Definition Source

Cps Standard Product Concentration (uS) See Above Eqn
Cpo Operating Product Concentration (uS) Manual Data
Pfs Standardized Feed Pressure (psi) Start-Up Info
Pfo Operating Feed Pressure (psi) Manual Data
Ps Standardized Machine Pressure Drop (psi) Pprimarystd - Pfinalstd
Po Operating Machine Pressure Drop (psi) Pprimaryop - Pfinalop
Pps Standardized Permeate Pressure (psi) Start-Up Info
Ppo Operating Permeate Pressure (psi) Manual Data
fco Standardized Osmotic Pressure of Feed-Concentrate Concentration See Notes
fcs Operating Osmotic Pressure of Feed-Concentrate Concentration See Notes
po Standardized Osmotic Pressure of Permeate Mixture See Notes
ps Operating Osmotic Pressure of Permeate Mixture See Notes
Cfcs Standard Feed-Concentrate Concentration (uS) See below
Cfco Operating Feed-Concentrate Concentration (uS) See below
Cfc = Cf X (ln (1/(1-Y))/Y

Y = recovery ratio = product flow/ feed flow
Cf = Conductivity of feed uS
10
CityofFerndale,WA
DATA ANALYSIS
All the data for this pilot study was compiled in a single Excel file , and is included in Appendix 2
(to be included in final report).
The pressure drop pre-filter throughout the pilot study was very consistent. The differential
pressure across the filter, at an overall feed flow of 34.48 gpm, ranged between from 0 to 6 psi
over the course of the pilot study. This filter was replaced on August 7, representing a
replacement frequency of approximately 2 months.
Figure 3: System Flow vs Time
Normalized Permeate Flow vs. Time

40.00
30.00
20.00
Normalized Permeate Flow
Linear (Normalized Permeate Flow)
10.00
0.00
05-Jun-13 15-Jun-13 25-Jun-13 05-Jul-13 15-Jul-13 25-Jul-13 04-Aug-13 14-Aug-13
Date
The system was designed to be operated using a permeate flow of 30 gpm and a concentrate flow
of 4.48 gpm to achieve a recovery of 87%. Actual perm eate flows ranged from 30 gpm to 32
gpm, and a veraged 31 gpm during the study. Concentrate flows ranged from 4.7 gpm to 4.9
gpm, and averaged 4.8 gpm . Above is a graph of the process flows dur ing the pilot study up to
August 11. So far, all flows have remained consistent throughout the study.
11
CityofFerndale,WA
Differential pressure drop across the membranes is an indication of foulants that may be blocking
the feed sp acers within the m embranes. Over the course of the study, differential pressures
across the 18 membranes in series ranged from 50 to 61 psid or approximately 2.8 3.1 psid per
membrane on average. This is well within normal manufacturer specifications for 40
membrane elements. Normal operating pressure drop was approxim ately 58 psid and remained
stable throughout the pilot. No indication of fouling is present.
Figure 4: Membrane Pressure Drop vs. Time
Membrane Pressure Drop vs. Time

70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
Machine Pressure Drop (Psi)
20.0 Linear (Machine Pressure Drop (Psi))
10.0
0.0
Date
12
CityofFerndale,WA
Figure 5: Conductivity vs. Time
Normalized Permeate Conductivity s vs. Time

20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
Perm Cond TDS (uS)Cp
6.00 Linear (Perm Cond TDS (uS)Cp)
4.00
2.00
0.00
Date
The graph above shows normalized and actual permeate conductivity over time. The normalized
permeate conductivity is stable through the pilot study period.
13
CityofFerndale,WA
Overall system salt (TDS) rejection is calculated by the following equation:
SRSystem
C f Cp
x100
Cf
C f Feed Concentrat ion
C p Permeate Concentrat ion
Actual membrane rejection is calculated differently since, as the water travels through the
machine, the feed concentration changes. To calculate actual m embrane salt rejection, the
following equations are used:
SRmembrane
C avg Cp
x100
Cavg
Cavg
C f Cc
2
C f Feed Concentrat ion
C c Concentrat e Concentrat ion
C p Permeate Concentrat ion
Actual Membrane Rejection (SR membrane) varied from 99.59% to 99.52% with an average of
99.56%.
Manganese is present in the feed water at around 0.2 m g/L. Feed water concentrations have not
been measured to date, but som e measurements will be taken ove r the latter part of the study.
The Manganese level in the RO Permeate was measured and was below detection.
TDS, hardness and sulfate levels were also reduced to below detection.
Chloride and sodium levels were reduced to the 2-3 mg/L range.
14
CityofFerndale,WA
MEMBRANE CIP
Wigens technician conducted a single Acid CIP of the entire RO skid on June 14 th, 2013
following a buildup in pressure in the third stage due to the recovery being set too high. This
cleaning was conducted at a pH of 2 (starting pH) and circulated for 30 minutes, then stood idle
for 30 minutes with a final circulation of another 30 minutes.
Following the CIP the third stage pressure returned to start-up levels indicating the build-up of
scale had been successfully rem oved. Following the CIP the antiscalant dose was also increased
from 2 to 3 mg/L to minimize the risk of further scaling.
MEMBRANE AUTOPSY
At the conclusion of the pilot study following a CIP an autopsy shall be conducted on the last
(tail) element in the final stage of the pilot plant to determine if there are any foulants remaining
on the membrane.
The full autopsy report shall be included in the final pilot report as Appendix 4 - Autopsy.
15
CityofFerndale,WA
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, the piloted flux rate of 13.95 GFD a nd recovery of 87% al ong with the chem ical
dosing used in the pilot study has allowed for effective application of reverse osmosis on the
Ferndale well water supply. Overall m embrane rejection was good and reduced dissolved solids
by 98.8% on average. No increase in feed pressure was noted, and no change in permeate quality
over the pilot study has been observed. .
Prefilter change outs sh ould not ne ed to occur more than once every 6-8 weeks based on the
performance during the pilot study. No membrane fouling has been observed using a 3.0 mg/l
dose of Vitec 4000 antiscalant over the course of the pilot study.
FULL-SCALE SYSTEM DESIGN AND ECONOMICS
The full scale system would be designed to produce approximately 400 gpm of RO permeate per
skid. At 87% recovery, 460 gpm would need to be feed to each RO skid.
The RO would likely be designed with a banking of 9-6-3:6L at a flux of 13.33 GFD using Toray
TMH20A-400 membranes. Assum ing the system operates at the piloted 3 mg/l antiscalant
injection rate, the chemical consumption would be as follows:
Vitec 4000 Antiscalant 28.38 lb / m illion gallons of permeate water produced. Market price
for Vitec 4000 is $4.12 / lb, when purchased in 2500 lb tote bins. Total cost per year for
Antiscalant is $24,581 / year, assuming one RO skid is running 100% of the time.
Assuming a cost of $0.08/kW-hr, electrical consumption would be approxim ately $115 / million
gallons of permeate water produced, or $24,193/year at 100% production rate of one RO skid.
This is the cost of operating the high pressure RO pump only.
Cartridge filter change o ut frequency should not exceed once every 42 days so the annual cost
would be approximately $1,000/year
An RO projection for the full scale system is included in Appendix 1 - RO Projections.
16
CityofFerndale,WA
APPENDIX 1 RO PROJECTIONS
17
CityofFerndale,WA
)%'.##'$'+'(%(#%(((.()#($@175
&B?:53D>1=55B>41<5,D?B1I)#&9<?D&B?:53D9?>1C51D5

&B?:53DD9D<5

&B?7+5BC9?> *@41D5 E>8<+5BC9?> *@41D5 #1I
'%(.()#)

554G1D5BDI@5B13;9C8,5<<?B(?6D5>54)1@G1D5B
554D5=@5B1DEB5 457 45C97>
'%6554@B5CCEB5 @C916D5BI51BC
)?D1<4966 @B5CCEB5 @C965542B9>59>3< 4&=1>96?<4C@9@5
B9>5@B5CCEB5 @C91D5H9D6B?=<1CD21>;
5C97>@5B9?4 I51BC
?E<9>713D?B 16D5BI51BC
(1<D@1CC1759>3B51C5 16D5BI51BC@5BI51B
(9<D45>C9DI9>45H 9>'%6554(0
(ICD5=B53?F5BI
(ICD5=65546<?G @= @4
&B?4E3D6<?G @= @4
F5B175CICD5=6<EH =
4 <
=
8
B9>56<?G @= @4
554C1<9>9DI =7
<1C9?>
&B?4E3DC1<9>9DI =7
<1C9?>16D5BI51BC
B9>5C1<9>9DI =7
<1C9?>
$!)

#5=2B1>5<5=5>DC)I@5)#)#)#)#)#)#
#5=2B1>5<5=5>DC@3C
<5=5>DC
+5CC5<@3C
&B5CCEB5F5CC5<C@3C

'53?F5BIB1D5
5546<?G@=
&B?4E3D6<?G@=
F5B1756<EH
B9>56<?G@=

554@B5CCEB5@C9
4&5<5=5>DC@C9
4&=1>96?<4C@9@5@C9
B9>5@B5CCEB5@C9
&5B= @B5CCEB5@C9

"5145<5=5>D
5546<?G@=
&B?4E3D6<?G@=
<EHB1D5

"1CD5<5=5>D
&B?4E3D6<?G@=
&B?4E3DB9>5B1D9?
B9>5@=
$5D4B9F9>7@B5CC @C9

)%'.##'$'+'(%(#%(((.()#($@175
&B?:53D>1=55B>41<5,D?B1I)#&9<?D&B?:53D9?>1C51D5

&B?:53DD9D<5

,)'$".((%B97)B51D54?>3 H@
1C=7
<9?>65546554B9>5&5B=51D5

1<39E=
#17>5C9E=
(?49E=
&?D1CC9E=
==?>9E=
1B9E=
(DB?>D9E=

8<?B945
(E<61D5
931B2?>1D5
1B2?>1D5
<E?B945
(9<931
B55%

)?D1<1C9?>
)?D1<1C=5A
<
E(
3=
% E(
3=
@+1<E5

"1>75<95B>45H
(D9661F9C>45H

&')')#$)
#51CEB51719>CD1%C31<5$?>5
(%1>4%(31<59>8929D?B$?>5
(1DEB1D9?>9>45H9>2B9>5 =1H (D9661F9C>45H

'%+'."#)(
6?B&0B9>5(1DEB1D9?>#1H '53?F
1(%
1(%
(B(%
1
(9<931

&%())')#$)
#51CEB51719>CD@5B=51D5$?>5

9C3<19=5B
)85@B?7B1=9C9>D5>454D?25EC542I@5BC?>C81F9>7D538>931<C;9<<1DD859B?G>49C3B5D9?>
1>4B9C; )85@B?:53D9?>C?2D19>54G9D8D85@B?7B1=1B5D855H@53D54CICD5=@5B6?B=1>35
21C54?>D851F5B175>?=9>1<5<5=5>D@5B6?B=1>351>41B5>?D1ED?=1D931<<I7E1B1>D554
)?B1IC81<<>?D25<912<56?B1>I5BB?B?B=9C31<3E<1D9?>9>D85@B?7B1=
)85?2D19>54B5CE<DC31>>?D25EC54D?B19C51>I3<19=6?B<9129<9DI?BG1BB1>DI
D9CD85EC5BCB5C@?>C929<9DID?=1;5@B?F9C9?>C1719>CD6?E<9>7C31<9>71>4385=931<
1DD13;CD?133?E>D6?B@9@9>71>4F1<F5@B5CCEB5<?CC5C6554@E=@CE3D9?>@B5CCEB51>4
@5B=51D5213;@B5CCEB5 ?BAE5CD9?>C@<51C53?>D13DEC
)?B1I>4ECDB95C>3 '%#5=2B1>5&B?4E3DC5@D
#981=138?=5*B1I1CE8921 1@1>
)"-
)?B1I#5=2B1>5*(>3
)81D385B?EBD&?G1I *(
)" -
)?B1I#5=2B1>5EB?@5
B125>13;5BCDB1CC5& % ?H #E>385>CD59>(G9DJ5B<1>4
)"-
)?B1IC91&D5 "D4
)" -
&BE45>D91<)?G5B539<(DB55D(9>71@?B5
)?B1I<E5CD1B#5=2B1>5? "D4
)5< 1H
/?>5)91>J8E9B@?BD>4ECDB91</?>559:9>789>1
*'"8DD@
GGG D?B1IG1D5B 3?=
+&)0$$)%)-)*&*$&* **0*+$* %B397
'DA<75F@3?77D@63>7.+AD3K+$G>>*53>7'$'DA<75F;A@3E73F7

'DA<75FF;F>7

'DA9-7DE;A@ ,B63F7 !G@:>-7DE;A@ ,B63F7 $3K
)&*0*+$+

776I3F7DFKB7D35=;E:.7>>AD*A8F7@76+3BI3F7D
776F7?B7D3FGD7 679 67E;9@
)&8776BD7EEGD7 BE;38F7DK73DE
+AF3>6;88 BD7EEGD7 BE;87764D;@7;@5> 6'?3@;8A>6EB;B7
D;@7BD7EEGD7 BE;3F7J;F8DA?>3EF43@=
7E;9@B7D;A6 K73DE
AG>;@935FAD 38F7DK73DE
*3>FB3EE397;@5D73E7 38F7DK73DEB7DK73D
*;>F67@E;FK;@67J ;@)&8776* 2
*KEF7?D75AH7DK
*KEF7?87768>AI B? B6
'DA6G5F8>AI B? B6
H7D397EKEF7?8>GJ ?
6 >
?
:
D;@78>AI B? B6
776E3>;@;FK ?9
>3E;A@
'DA6G5FE3>;@;FK ?9
>3E;A@38F7DK73DE
D;@7E3>;@;FK ?9
>3E;A@
%"+

$7?4D3@7>7?7@FE+KB7+$ +$ +$

$7?4D3@7>7?7@FEB5E
>7?7@FE
-7EE7>B5E
'D7EEGD7H7EE7>EB5E

)75AH7DKD3F7
7768>AIB?
'DA6G5F8>AIB?
H7D3978>GJ
D;@78>AIB?

776BD7EEGD7BE;
6'7>7?7@FEBE;
6'?3@;8A>6EB;B7BE;
D;@7BD7EEGD7BE;
'7D? BD7EEGD7BE;

#7367>7?7@F
7768>AIB?
'DA6G5F8>AIB?
>GJD3F7

#3EF7>7?7@F
'DA6G5F8>AIB?
'DA6G5FD;@7D3F;A
D;@7B?
%7F6D;H;@9BD7EE BE;

+&)0$$)%)-)*&*$&* **0*+$* %B397
'DA<75F@3?77D@63>7.+AD3K+$G>>*53>7'$'DA<75F;A@3E73F7

'DA<75FF;F>7

.+)%#0* *&D;9+D73F76A@5 JB

3E?9
>;A@87768776D;@7'7D?73F7

3>5;G?
$39@7E;G?
*A6;G?
'AF3EE;G?
??A@;G?
3D;G?
*FDA@F;G?

:>AD;67
*G>83F7
;53D4A@3F7
3D4A@3F7
>GAD;67
*;>;53
D77&

+AF3>3E;A@
+AF3>3E?7C
>
G*
5?
& G*
5?
B-3>G7

#3@97>;7D @67J
*F;883H;E @67J

')+)+$%+
$73EGD7393;@EF3&E53>7%A@7
*&3@6&*53>7;@:;4;FAD%A@7
*3FGD3F;A@;@67J;@4D;@7 ?3J *F;883H;E @67J

)&-)0# $ +*
8AD '2D;@7*3FGD3F;A@$3J )75AH
3*&
3*&
*D*&
3
*;>;53

'&*++)+$%+
$73EGD7393;@EFB7D?73F7%A@7

+&)0$$)%)-)*&*$&* **0*+$* %B397
'DA<75F@3?77D@63>7.+AD3K+$G>>*53>7'$'DA<75F;A@3E73F7

'DA<75FF;F>7

'DA9-7DE;A@ ,B63F7 !G@:>-7DE;A@ ,B63F7 $3K
% - ,##$%++
3@=>7?7@F%A

7768>AIB?
>7?7@F+$'BE;
7>F3BBE;
776&E?AF;5BE;
$7?4 &E?AF;5BE;
D;@7&E?AF;5BE;
776+*BB?
D;@78>AIB?
D;@7+*BB?
'7D?73F78>AIB?
'7D?73F7+*BB?
'7D?73F7G*
BDA8;>7G*
BDA8;>7G*
)75AH7DK
)7<75F;A@%3>

3@= >7?7@F%A

7768>AIB?
>7?7@F+$'BE;
7>F3BBE;
776&E?AF;5BE;
$7?4 &E?AF;5BE;
D;@7&E?AF;5BE;
776+*BB?
D;@78>AIB?
D;@7+*BB?
'7D?73F78>AIB?
'7D?73F7+*BB?
'7D?73F7G*
BDA8;>7G*
BDA8;>7G*
)75AH7DK
)7<75F;A@%3>

3@=>7?7@F%A

7768>AIB?
>7?7@F+$'BE;
7>F3BBE;
776&E?AF;5BE;
$7?4 &E?AF;5BE;
D;@7&E?AF;5BE;
776+*BB?
D;@78>AIB?
D;@7+*BB?
'7D?73F78>AIB?
'7D?73F7+*BB?
'7D?73F7G*
BDA8;>7G*
BDA8;>7G*
)75AH7DK
)7<75F;A@%3>

+&)0$$)%)-)*&*$&* **0*+$* %B397
'DA<75F@3?77D@63>7.+AD3K+$G>>*53>7'$'DA<75F;A@3E73F7

'DA<75FF;F>7

'DA9-7DE;A@ ,B63F7 !G@:>-7DE;A@ ,B63F7 $3K
'3EE
3@=
>+%A

('?
6
'2&E?
'2D;H
%3>)7<
776 D;@7

3
$9
%3
"
%
3
*D
>
*&
%&
&
&

*;&

D
'&
&
*G?
B
'DA6G5F +AF3>

3
$9
%3
"
%
3
*D
>
*&
%&
&
&

*;&

D
'&
&
*G?
B

'3EE
3@=
>+%A

('?
6
'2&E?
'2D;H
%3>)7<
776 D;@7

3
$9
%3
"
%
3
*D
>
*&
%&
&
&

*;&

D
'&
&
*G?
B
'DA6G5F +AF3>

3
$9
%3
"
%
3
*D
>
*&
%&
&
&

*;&

D
'&
&
*G?
B

'3EE
3@=
>+%A

('?
6
'2&E?
'2D;H
%3>)7<
776 D;@7

3
$9
%3
"
%
3
*D
>
*&
%&
&
&

*;&

D
'&
&
*G?
B
'DA6G5F +AF3>

3
$9
%3
"
%
3
*D
>
*&
%&
&
&

*;&

D
'&
&
*G?
B

;E5>3;?7D
+:7BDA9D3?;E;@F7@676FA47GE764KB7DEA@E:3H;@9F75:@;53>E=;>>3FF:7;DAI@6;E5D7F;A@
3@6D;E= +:7BDA<75F;A@EA4F3;@76I;F:F:7BDA9D3?3D7F:77JB75F76EKEF7?B7D8AD?3@57
43E76A@F:73H7D397@A?;@3>7>7?7@FB7D8AD?3@573@63D7@AF3GFA?3F;53>>K9G3D3@F776
+AD3KE:3>>@AF47>;34>78AD3@K7DDADAD?;E53>5G>3F;A@;@F:7BDA9D3?
+:7A4F3;@76D7EG>FE53@@AF47GE76FAD3;E73@K5>3;?8AD>;34;>;FKADI3DD3@FK
F;EF:7GE7DED7EBA@E;4;>;FKFA?3=7BDAH;E;A@E393;@EF8AG>;@9E53>;@93@65:7?;53>
3FF35=EFA355AG@F8ADB;B;@93@6H3>H7BD7EEGD7>AEE7E8776BG?BEG5F;A@BD7EEGD73@6
B7D?73F7435=BD7EEGD7 ADCG7EF;A@EB>73E75A@F35FGE
+AD3K @6GEFD;7E @5 )&$7?4D3@7'DA6G5FE7BF

$;:3?35:A?7,D3K3EG:;43 !3B3@
+#/
+AD3K$7?4D3@7,* @5
+:3F5:7DAGDF'AI3K ,*
+# /
+AD3K$7?4D3@7GDAB7
D347@35=7DEFD3EE7' & AJ $G@5:7@EF7;@*I;FL7D>3@6
+#/
+AD3KE;3'F7 #F6
+# /
'DG67@F;3>+AI7D75;>*FD77F*;@93BAD7
+AD3K>G7EF3D$7?4D3@7A #F6
+7> 3J
1A@7+;3@L:G;DBADF @6GEFD;3>1A@77;<;@9:;@3
,)#:FFB
III FAD3KI3F7D 5A?
APPENDIX 2 LABORATORY DATA
SampleDescription analyte_name Units SampleDate SampleDate SampleDate PQL MDL

6/25/2013 7/2/2013 7/9/2013
FeedWater ALKALINITY mgCaCO3/L 249 251 244 2.00
FeedWater ARSENIC mg/L 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.001 2.52E05
FeedWater CHLORIDE mg/L 149 148 167 0.1 0.014
FeedWater SULFATE mg/L 28 28 28 0.2 0.016
FeedWater HARDNESSasCalciumCarbonate mg/L 145 176.6 200.1 3.30 0.055
FeedWater TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS(TDS) mg/L 551 559 568 10
FeedWater IRON mg/L ND ND 0.01 0.050 0.004
CombinedPermeate ALKALINITY mgCaCO3/L 4.3 3.21 7.19 2.00

CombinedPermeate ARSENIC mg/L ND 0.0003 ND 0.001 2.52E05
CombinedPermeate BROMIDE mg/L 0.013 NotTested 0.014 0.005 0.00018
CombinedPermeate CHLORIDE mg/L 2.3 2.3 2.5 0.1 0.014
CombinedPermeate SULFATE mg/L ND 0.03 ND 0.2 0.016
CombinedPermeate HARDNESSasCalciumCarbonate mg/L ND ND 0.1 3.30 0.055
CombinedPermeate SODIUM mg/L 2.6 NotTested 3 1.0 0.03
CombinedPermeate AMMONIAN mg/L ND NotTested ND 0.03 0.0112
CombinedPermeate TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS(TDS) mg/L ND ND ND 10
CombinedPermeate MANGANESE mg/L ND NotTested ND 0.005 0.0012
CombinedPermeate IRON mg/L ND ND ND 0.050 0.004
Concentrate ALKALINITY mgCaCO3/L 2155 2120 2105 2.00

Concentrate ARSENIC mg/L 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.001 2.52E05
Concentrate CHLORIDE mg/L 1218 1204 1374 10 1.4
Concentrate SULFATE mg/L 243 239 248 0.2 0.016
Concentrate HARDNESSasCalciumCarbonate mg/L 1190 1466.5 1648.3 3.30 0.055
Concentrate TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS(TDS) mg/L 4718 4709 4819 10
Concentrate IRON mg/L 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.050 0.004
CityofFerndale,WA
APPENDIX 3 LOG DATA
CityofFerndale,WA
APPENDIX 4 AUTOPSY
CityofFerndale,WA
APPENDIX C
WATER QUALITY DATA

PILOT STUDY LAB DATA
ProcessStream Parameter Units SampleDate Mean Rel.St.Dev. PQL MDL

6/25/2013 7/2/2013 7/9/2013 7/17/2013 7/23/2013 7/30/2013 8/07/2013 8/13/2013 8/20/2013 8/27/2013 9/03/2013
FeedWater ALKALINITY mgCaCO3/L 249 251 244 245 247 249 245 244 240 245 244 246 1% 2
FeedWater ARSENIC mg/L 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.003 0.004 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.003 0.0033 14% 0.001 0.00003
FeedWater CHLORIDE mg/L 149 148 167 174 174 180 180 180 192 185 173 8% 0.1 0.01
FeedWater HARDNESS mgCaCO3/L 145 177 200 200 194 196 191 192 200 201 190 190 9% 3.3 0.05
FeedWater IRON mg/L ND ND 0.01 0.009 0.008 0.014 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.01 0.01 0.009 28% 0.05 0.004
FeedWater MANGANESE mg/L 0.189 0.202 0.20 0.005 0.0012
FeedWater SILICA mg/L 20.9 20.9 0.05 0.002
FeedWater SULFATE mg/L 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 28 28 28 2% 0.2 0.02
FeedWater TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS mg/L 551 559 568 576 572 599 592 595 595 598 589 581 3% 10
Permeate ALKALINITY mgCaCO3/L 4.3 3.21 7.19 4.96 4.46 3.57 5.47 5.27 6.17 6.91 5.68 5.2 24% 2
Permeate AMMONIAN mg/L ND ND ND 0.14 0.06 0.01 0.07 94% 0.03 0.0112
Permeate ARSENIC mg/L ND 0.0003 ND 0.0003 0.0003 0.0003 0.0005 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0004 0.00036 20% 0.001 0.00003
Permeate BROMIDE mg/L 0.013 0.014 0.011 0.012 0.013 0.012 0.013 8% 0.005 0.0002
Permeate CHLORIDE mg/L 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.7 3.1 2.6 2.9 3 2.9 3 10% 0.1 0.014
Permeate HARDNESS mgCaCO3/L ND ND 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.08 0.09 ND ND 0.2 0.17 59% 3.3 0.055
Permeate HYDROGENSULFIDE mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1
Permeate IRON mg/L ND ND ND 0.006 ND 0.005 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.05 0.004
Permeate MANGANESE mg/L ND ND 0.0005 ND 0.008 0.004 125% 0.005 0.0012
Permeate SILICA mg/L 0.34 0.34 0.05 0.002
Permeate SODIUM mg/L 2.6 3 4.1 2.8 3 4.1 3.3 20% 1 0.03
Permeate SULFATE mg/L ND 0.03 ND ND ND 0.1 0.03 0.06 ND 0.06 0.1 51% 0.2 0.016
Permeate TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS mg/L ND ND ND ND 11 13 14 14 4 10 ND 11 34% 10
Concentrate ALKALINITY mgCaCO3/L 2155 2120 2105 2095 2080 2080 2035 2040 1990 2015 1980 2063 3% 2
Concentrate ARSENIC mg/L 0.025 0.025 0.023 0.025 0.024 0.025 0.032 0.032 0.031 0.023 0.023 0.026 14% 0.001 0.00003
Concentrate CHLORIDE mg/L 1218 1204 1374 1362 1360 1401 1397 1445 1501 1535 1527 1393 8% 10 1.4
Concentrate HARDNESS mgCaCO3/L 1190 1467 1648 1594 1534 1593 1616 1529 1632 1636 1533 1543 8% 3.3 0.05
Concentrate HYDROGENSULFIDE mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 0.1 0.1
Concentrate IRON mg/L 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.1 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.053 0.06 27% 0.05 0.004
Concentrate SULFATE mg/L 243 239 248 243 243 237 238 238 232 242 241 240 2% 0.2 0.02
Concentrate TOTALDISSOLVEDSOLIDS mg/L 4718 4709 4819 4883 4780 4820 4824 4844 4956 4880 4872 4828 2% 10
NDNotDetected
PQLPracticalQuantitationLimit
MDLMethodDetectionLimit
PILOT STUDY FIELD DATA
Cfc(uS)Conc of Feed-Concentrate
Temperature Correction Factor
(Psi)Machine Pressure Drop
(psi)Prefilter Pressure Drop
(psi)Interstage #1 Pressure
(psi)Interstage #2 Pressure
Avg Cond (uS) (Cf+Cc)/2

Perm Cond TDS (uS)Cp
(psi)Post Filter Pressure
(psi)Permeate Pressure
(Qp+Qc)Recovery Qp/
(psi)Primary Pressure
(psi)Prefilter Pressure
Perm Flow (gpm) Qp
Passage Cp/Cavg %
Conc Flow (gpm) Qc
Recy Flow (gpm) Qr
Conc Cond (uS) Cc

(psi)Final Pressure
Feed Cond (uS) Cf

(F)Temp
Date
6/14/2013 16 16 0 140 0 104 87 90 50 53 0.61 30 7.0 0 988 13 5167 3077 81% 42% 2029
6/15/2013 16 16 0 141 0 110 95 84 57 53 0.61 30 5.0 0 987 13 6831 3909 86% 33% 2241
6/15/2013 16 16 0 141 0 110 95 84 57 53 0.61 30 5.0 0 988 13 6838 3913 86% 33% 2243
6/16/2013 16 16 0 141 0 108 95 83 58 53 0.61 31 5.0 0 970 14 6897 3934 86% 36% 2224
6/16/2013 16 16 0 143 0 109 95 83 60 53 0.61 31 5.0 0 986 14 7012 3999 86% 35% 2260
6/17/2013 16 16 0 143 0 109 95 83 60 53 0.60 31 4.7 0 988 13 7416 4202 87% 32% 2307
6/17/2013 16 16 0 143 0 109 110 84 59 53 0.61 30 4.7 0 984 14 7175 4080 86% 34% 2275
6/18/2013 17 17 0 143 0 109 96 84 59 52 0.60 31 4.6 0 997 13 7628 4313 87% 30% 2343
6/18/2013 16 16 0 143 0 109 95 83 60 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 983 14 7241 4112 87% 34% 2281
6/19/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 95 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 985 14 7389 4187 87% 33% 2300
6/19/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 95 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 986 13 7404 4195 87% 31% 2302
6/20/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 96 83 59 53 0.61 32 4.8 0 988 14 7481 4235 87% 33% 2314
6/20/2013 16 16 0 143 0 110 96 82 61 53 0.61 32 4.8 0 986 14 7466 4226 87% 33% 2310
6/21/2013 16 16 0 141 0 108 95 85 56 53 0.61 32 4.7 0 963 13 7431 4197 87% 31% 2270
6/21/2013 16 16 0 141 0 108 96 84 57 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 988 13 7419 4203 87% 31% 2307
6/22/2013 16 16 0 141 0 108 95 83 58 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 988 14 7278 4133 87% 34% 2293
6/22/2013 16 16 0 143 0 110 96 84 59 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 988 13 7285 4136 87% 31% 2293
6/23/2013 16 16 0 142 0 108 95 83 59 53 0.61 32 4.7 0 986 14 7604 4295 87% 33% 2324
6/23/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 96 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 987 14 7405 4196 87% 33% 2305
6/24/2013 16 16 0 141 0 110 94 83 58 53 0.61 30 4.7 0 987 14 7198 4092 86% 34% 2282
6/24/2013 16 16 0 141 0 109 95 84 57 53 0.61 30 4.7 0 988 14 7205 4097 86% 34% 2285
6/25/2013 16 16 0 141 0 109 92 81 60 53 0.61 31 4.6 0 844 12 6451 3647 87% 33% 1983
6/25/2013 16 16 0 141 0 108 95 83 58 53 0.61 32 4.7 0 984 14 7588 4286 87% 33% 2319
6/26/2013 16 16 0 142 0 108 94 83 59 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 988 14 7412 4200 87% 33% 2307
6/26/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 95 83 59 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 988 13 7419 4203 87% 31% 2307
6/27/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 94 83 59 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 988 14 7412 4200 87% 33% 2307
6/27/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 95 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 988 13 7419 4203 87% 31% 2307
6/28/2013 16 16 0 141 0 108 94 83 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 991 14 7435 4213 87% 33% 2314
6/28/2013 16 16 0 141 0 109 95 84 57 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 988 13 7419 4203 87% 31% 2307
6/29/2013 16 16 0 142 0 110 94 83 59 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 981 13 7366 4173 87% 31% 2291
6/29/2013 16 16 0 143 0 110 94 83 60 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 988 13 7419 4203 87% 31% 2307
6/30/2013 16 16 0 141 0 109 93 83 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 986 14 7397 4192 87% 33% 2302
6/30/2013 16 16 0 142 0 109 95 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 986 14 7397 4192 87% 33% 2302
7/1/2013 18 18 0 142 0 110 96 84 58 52 0.60 31 4.6 0 994 14 7598 4296 87% 33% 2336
7/1/2013 18 18 0 142 0 110 95 84 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 993 13 7457 4225 87% 31% 2319
7/1/2013 18 18 0 142 0 110 95 85 57 53 0.61 32 4.7 0 991 14 7643 4317 87% 32% 2336
7/2/2013 17 17 0 142 0 110 95 85 57 53 0.61 31 4.6 0 994 13 7605 4300 87% 30% 2336
7/2/2013 17 17 0 142 0 110 95 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 993 13 7457 4225 87% 31% 2319
7/3/2013 17 17 0 142 0 109 95 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 987 13 7411 4199 87% 31% 2305
7/3/2013 17 17 0 142 0 109 96 84 58 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 993 13 7457 4225 87% 31% 2319
7/4/2013 17 17 0 142 0 111 95 84 58 53 0.61 30 4.7 0 1015 14 7404 4210 86% 33% 2347
7/4/2013 17 17 0 143 0 111 97 85 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1025 14 7693 4359 87% 32% 2393
7/5/2013 16 16 0 143 0 110 96 84 59 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 1028 14 7577 4302 87% 33% 2385
7/5/2013 17 17 0 143 0 109 96 84 59 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1026 14 7701 4363 87% 32% 2396
7/6/2013 17 17 0 143 0 109 96 84 59 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1024 14 7686 4355 87% 32% 2391
7/6/2013 16 16 0 143 0 110 96 84 59 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 1026 14 7701 4363 87% 32% 2396
7/7/2013 16 16 0 144 0 111 96 85 59 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 1025 15 7548 4286 87% 35% 2378
7/7/2013 17 17 0 144 0 110 96 85 59 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 1025 15 7687 4356 87% 34% 2393
7/8/2013 17 17 0 142 0 108 95 82 60 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 1073 13 8064 4569 87% 28% 2505
7/8/2013 17 17 0 143 0 111 97 86 57 52 0.60 32 4.7 0 1024 15 7894 4459 87% 34% 2414
7/9/2013 17 17 0 144 0 113 96 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1026 14 7562 4294 87% 33% 2381
7/9/2013 17 17 0 145 0 111 97 85 60 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 1024 14 7547 4285 87% 33% 2376
7/10/2013 17 17 0 145 0 111 97 85 60 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1024 14 7547 4285 87% 33% 2376
7/10/2013 17 17 0 145 0 111 96 85 60 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1031 14 7739 4385 87% 32% 2407
7/11/2013 17 17 0 144 0 111 98 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1030 14 7731 4381 87% 32% 2405
7/11/2013 17 17 0 145 0 111 96 84 61 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1037 14 7784 4411 87% 32% 2421
7/12/2013 18 18 0 145 0 111 98 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1031 14 7739 4385 87% 32% 2407
7/12/2013 16 16 0 144 0 111 98 85 59 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1030 14 7731 4381 87% 32% 2405
7/13/2013 17 17 0 145 0 111 98 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1043 14 7830 4437 87% 32% 2435
7/13/2013 17 17 0 144 0 111 98 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1044 14 7838 4441 87% 32% 2438
7/14/2013 16 16 0 144 0 111 98 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1030 14 7731 4381 87% 32% 2405
7/14/2013 17 17 0 144 0 111 97 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1041 14 7674 4357 87% 32% 2416
7/15/2013 16 16 0 144 0 111 97 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1046 14 7853 4449 87% 31% 2442
7/16/2013 18 17 1 143 0 110 96 84 59 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1036 12 7790 4413 87% 27% 2419
7/16/2013 17 16 1 143 0 112 98 86 57 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1041 14 7815 4428 87% 32% 2431
7/17/2013 17 16 1 145 0 112 98 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1041 14 7674 4357 87% 32% 2416
7/17/2013 18 16 2 144 0 111 98 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1041 14 7815 4428 87% 32% 2431
7/18/2013 18 16 2 145 0 111 98 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1042 14 7681 4362 87% 32% 2418
7/18/2013 18 16 2 144 0 111 98 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1042 14 7822 4432 87% 32% 2433
7/19/2013 18 16 2 143 0 111 98 86 57 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1042 14 7681 4362 87% 32% 2418
7/19/2013 18 16 2 143 0 111 98 87 56 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1042 14 7822 4432 87% 32% 2433
7/20/2013 18 16 2 143 0 111 98 87 56 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1041 14 7674 4357 87% 32% 2416
7/20/2013 18 16 2 145 0 111 99 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1041 14 7674 4357 87% 32% 2416
7/21/2013 18 16 2 143 0 113 98 86 57 52 0.60 30 4.8 0 1043 15 7468 4256 86% 35% 2397
7/21/2013 18 16 2 144 0 111 98 87 57 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1040 15 7660 4350 87% 34% 2413
7/22/2013 18 16 2 143 0 110 96 84 59 53 0.61 31 4.6 0 1056 14 8078 4567 87% 31% 2482
7/22/2013 18 16 2 145 0 112 97 85 60 52 0.60 32 4.7 0 1042 15 8034 4538 87% 33% 2456
7/23/2013 18 16 2 146 0 112 97 86 60 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1041 14 7815 4428 87% 32% 2431
7/23/2013 18 14 4 145 0 112 98 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1087 14 8017 4552 87% 31% 2522
7/24/2013 18 16 2 145 0 112 97 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1042 14 7681 4362 87% 32% 2418
7/24/2013 18 16 2 145 0 111 98 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1051 14 7891 4471 87% 31% 2454
7/25/2013 19 16 3 145 0 112 98 87 58 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 1050 15 7734 4392 87% 34% 2436
7/26/2013 18 16 2 146 0 112 99 86 60 52 0.60 32 4.8 0 1051 15 7958 4504 87% 33% 2462
7/26/2013 18 15 3 146 0 113 98 86 60 52 0.60 32 4.7 0 1050 15 8097 4573 87% 33% 2475
7/27/2013 18 15 3 143 0 111 99 86 57 52 0.60 32 4.8 0 1065 15 8065 4565 87% 33% 2495
7/27/2013 18 15 3 145 0 112 99 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1064 15 7983 4523 87% 33% 2484
7/28/2013 18 15 3 145 0 111 98 86 59 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 1061 15 7960 4511 87% 33% 2477
7/28/2013 18 15 3 146 0 112 99 87 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1059 15 7802 4430 87% 34% 2457
7/29/2013 18 15 3 143 0 112 99 86 57 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 1058 15 7794 4426 87% 34% 2455
7/29/2013 18 15 3 143 0 112 99 86 57 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 1060 15 7809 4434 87% 34% 2460
7/30/2013 18 15 3 145 0 114 99 91 54 52 0.60 30 4.8 0 1059 14 7588 4324 86% 33% 2434
7/31/2013 18 15 3 144 0 109 95 83 61 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 833 12 6248 3541 87% 34% 1945
7/31/2013 18 15 3 146 0 113 98 87 59 52 0.60 32 4.7 0 1061 15 8183 4622 87% 32% 2501
8/1/2013 18 15 3 147 0 111 98 87 60 52 0.60 32 4.8 0 1060 15 8027 4543 87% 33% 2483
8/1/2013 18 15 3 146 0 113 99 86 60 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1060 15 7809 4434 87% 34% 2460
8/2/2013 18 14 4 144 0 112 99 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1059 14 7808 4433 87% 32% 2457
8/2/2013 18 14 4 144 0 113 98 86 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1056 14 7786 4421 87% 32% 2450
8/3/2013 18 14 4 143 0 109 96 83 60 53 0.61 31 4.7 0 844 12 6332 3588 87% 33% 1971
8/3/2013 18 14 4 145 0 114 98 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1061 14 7823 4442 87% 32% 2462
8/4/2013 18 14 4 146 0 114 98 87 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1061 15 7816 4439 87% 34% 2462
8/4/2013 18 14 4 146 0 112 99 87 59 52 0.60 32 4.7 0 1059 15 8167 4613 87% 33% 2496
8/5/2013 18 14 4 145 0 112 98 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1060 15 7809 4434 87% 34% 2460
8/5/2013 18 14 4 145 0 113 99 86 59 52 0.60 31 4.9 0 1057 15 7649 4353 86% 34% 2438
8/6/2013 18 14 4 145 0 113 100 88 57 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1059 14 7808 4433 87% 32% 2457
8/6/2013 18 14 4 147 0 114 98 87 60 52 0.60 30 4.8 0 1057 15 7570 4313 86% 35% 2429
8/7/2013 18 14 4 147 0 113 99 87 60 52 0.60 31 4.7 0 1057 14 7936 4497 87% 31% 2468
8/7/2013 18 18 0 146 0 112 99 87 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1057 14 7793 4425 87% 32% 2453
8/8/2013 18 18 0 146 0 113 99 87 59 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1057 14 7793 4425 87% 32% 2453
8/8/2013 18 18 0 145 0 113 99 87 58 52 0.60 32 4.8 0 1056 14 8003 4529 87% 31% 2474
8/9/2013 18 18 0 145 0 112 98 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.9 0 1059 14 7670 4365 86% 32% 2442
8/9/2013 18 18 0 145 0 113 99 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1055 14 7778 4417 87% 32% 2448
8/10/2013 18 18 0 142 0 110 96 85 57 53 0.61 31 4.8 0 838 13 6166 3502 87% 37% 1945
8/10/2013 18 18 0 145 0 113 98 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1057 14 7793 4425 87% 32% 2453
8/11/2013 18 18 0 145 0 113 98 87 58 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1056 14 7786 4421 87% 32% 2450
8/11/2013 18 18 0 143 0 112 99 86 57 52 0.60 31 4.8 0 1041 14 7674 4357 87% 32% 2416

Draft Water Softening Project Report 10-14-13

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Draft Water Softening Project Report 10-14-13

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

DRAFT

Water Softening Project Report

The City of Ferndale Public Works

October 14, 2013

Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................... ii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

CaCO3 calcium carbonate

The objectives of this report are to:

1.2 Summary of the recommended alternative, proposed

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 1

1.3 The relationship of the project to other water system

1.4 Statement of change in the physical capacity of the

1.5 Explanation of why the State Environmental Policy Act

1.6 Summary of source development

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 2

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 3

Table 1. Hardness and softening related parameters.

4/28/2010 (Shop) - -- 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

12/21/12 (Douglas) 12 8.25 228 206 0.222 --

12/21/2012 (Shop) 12 8.25 244 125 0.102 --

4/10/2013 (Douglas) 12 8.20 230 195 0.222 --

4/10/2013 (Shop) 12 8.20 257 119 0.093 --

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 4

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 5

Table 2. Major TDS components of groundwater at different points in time.

Total Diss. Solids

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 6

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 7

Table 3. 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

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 8

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 9

Table 5. Disinfectants and DBPs in finished water.

3.1.1 Primary Contaminants

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 10

3.1.2 Secondary Contaminants

3.1.3 Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts

3.1.4 Interfering Constituents

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 11

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 12

4. Water Quantity and Water Rights

The design flow used for the alternatives evaluation is:

Maximum Daily Flow = 1600 GPM

Maximum Daily Flow = 1700 GPM

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 13

DEMAND TYPE UNITS YEAR

2012 2022 2032

Water supply demand (existing and future)

DRAFT OCTOBER 14, 2013 14

Corrosion (lead and copper)

5.1 Ion Exchange with Sodium as Regenerant

5.1.1 General Process Description