Repurposing a Fleck 5600 10x54

[Yinn]

I just replaced my softener system. A new water test, increased family size, and getting a little more efficiency out of a metered system convinced me to just replace it.

But now I have my old 5600 w/ 8x44" softener tank and 5600 w/10x54 nitrate tank sitting off to the side, just staring at me.

I have the following setup:
Submersible 3/4hp 10gpm well pump ->
Check Valve ->
Cycle Stop Valve ->
1" Pressure Tank ->
1" 50 Micron Spin Filter ->
Big Blue 4.5x20" 5 Micron Cartridge Sediment Filter ->
1" 12x52 / 2.0 Clack Softener ->
3/4" - 15GPM UV ->
3/4" House trunk

I'm staring at that 5 micron sediment pre-filter and I'm wondering if I'd be able to repurpose one of the old tanks. The 8x44 might be too small for anything but the 10x54 might still be useful.

I also figure the lack water metering isn't as important with a media filter as that would be more time based, is that a reasonable thought?

My water has trace amounts of uranium (0.006PPM). According to EPA activated alumina is good against uranium. KL has also listed as being able to reduce trace amounts of it. So I'm considering opening and cleaning the 10x54 and just filling it up with KL to address that.

There's some reading that suggests GAC may have a minimal impact on uranium - and definitely on radon, so another thought is potentially just replacing my 5 micron sediment filter with the 10x54 and convert it into a GAC filter and then retest to see how that goes first.

I'm thinking I should be able to just remove the injector and/or plug the brine line and replace the resin with media. Does anyone know the right way to approach this?

 

[Reach4]

KL has also listed as being able to reduce trace amounts of it. So I'm considering opening and cleaning the 10x54 and just filling it up with KL to address that.

A 5600 does not have enough backwash ability for a 10 inch tank with KL (which would need about an 8 to 10 gpm backwash), but does for 10 carbon (which would need about 5 gpm backwash).

The 5600s could backwash KL in a 9 inch tank (about 6 gpm).

Here is 10 inch:

 

[Sponsor]

 

[Yinn]

A 5600 does not have enough backwash ability for a 10 inch tank with KL (which would need about an 8 to 10 gpm backwash), but does for 10 carbon (which would need about 5 gpm backwash).

The 5600s could backwash KL in a 9 inch tank (about 6 gpm).

Here is 10 inch:

Since I don't have a 9in tank, it sounds like it would be best to turn it into a GAC or CC filter then.

I just took a look at the brochure you linked and it looks like a 10x44 tank has a max service flow rate of 2.64-gpm. Am I reading that correctly? My tank is slightly taller, but I wouldn't be able to get enough flow at 2.64gpm.

 

[Reach4]

Since I don't have a 9in tank, it sounds like it would be best to turn it into a GAC or CC filter then.

I just took a look at the brochure you linked and it looks like a 10x44 tank has a max service flow rate of 2.64-gpm. Am I reading that correctly? My tank is slightly taller, but I wouldn't be able to get enough flow at 2.64gpm.

I made, and attached, a table for an 8-inch KL tank.

An 8" x 44" tank would hold 0.75 cu. ft. of media leaving space for backwashing.

 

[ditttohead]

Service flow is the maximum recommended flow for a given media. This will allow for the media to perform properly. Exceed these numbers and your performance will typically fall quickly. Peak flow is the amount of water a system can flow regardless of performance.

 

[Yinn]

I think the 8x44 couldn't work with the KL then right? My well pump is a 10gpm pump and based on my water meter it looks like I spend the majority of my day between 3.5-5.5gpm.

 

[Reach4]

I think the 8x44 couldn't work with the KL then right? My well pump is a 10gpm pump and based on my water meter it looks like I spend the majority of my day between 3.5-5.5gpm.

The KL is after the pressure tank, so it would not be in line with the 10 gpm.

I suspect the 3.5-5.5 is peak usage reported by your softener, and is nowhere near an average.

When taking a shower you might be pulling 2.o or 2.5 gpm.

Yes, the 10x54 tank would be better, but you would want a different valve to do the backwashing.

 

[Yinn]

The KL is after the pressure tank, so it would not be in line with the 10 gpm.

I suspect the 3.5-5.5 is peak usage reported by your softener, and is nowhere near an average.

When taking a shower you might be pulling 2.o or 2.5 gpm.

Yes, the 10x54 tank would be better, but you would want a different valve to do the backwashing.

My meter only shows me "peak" usage which is around 6-7gpm but I'm figured I probably don't spend a ton of time at that rate so I calculated based on what's typically on at the same time for my range. It isn't highly scientific just an estimate.

I did find this: https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/32/018/32018426.pdf

It's an older article but a couple of quotes on it.

- Uranium could best be removed (>95%) with strong basic anion exchange resins and radium by applying strong acidic cation exchange resins
- Also, weak acidic cation resin, zeolite A, sodium titanate and manganese dioxide were found efficient in radium removal
- Results of the experiments with manganese dioxide as adsorbent showed that the adsorption yield of uranium decreases with increasing pH value and that the adsorption is smaller if the water hardness is high

I believe KL's active for my purposes (uranium removal) would be the manganese dioxide. Since it's less effective in hard water, should I actually place this after the softener?

Since I don't need any of KLs correction aside from the uranium removal, I decided to do a water test to see what it comes back with. I did a raw at POE but for $150 at simplelab, I figured it would probably be good to see what's left after the softener instead of just throwing things at it.

 

[Reach4]

I don't know about filtering uranium other than with RO, but I remember reading that uranium in a test usually usually suggests you would have radon. Radon is not going to show up in a normal water test. Do get your air tested.

https://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/rms/agreedown/urwater.pdf

 

[Yinn]

I don't know about filtering uranium other than with RO, but I remember reading that uranium in a test usually usually suggests you would have radon. Radon is not going to show up in a normal water test. Do get your air tested.

https://www.state.nj.us/dep/rpp/rms/agreedown/urwater.pdf

In my area radon air testing is required upon purchasing the home. There is definitely some in my area so I actually have a radon monitor and I'm below limits. But the monitor did spike when I worked on the well tank, so I know there's some in the water as well - which I believe carbon filters are supposed to capture.

 

[Reach4]

My water has trace amounts of uranium (0.006PPM).

Your U number is 1/5000 of the MCL.

GAC would take out radon and organic chemicals that might also be there in tiny amounts.

Do you really have levels of iron and Mn below the test levels? No H2S or other smell detectable, even by children?

 

[Yinn]

Your U number is 1/5000 of the MCL.

GAC would take out radon and organic chemicals that might also be there in tiny amounts.

Do you really have levels of iron and Mn below the test levels? No H2S or other smell detectable, even by children?

I had high levels when I moved in over a decade ago. The house was vacant at the time and I installed my old system which eliminated any staining, smells, etc.

The most recent tests came back as follows:

Iron: 0.02ppm
Manganese: Tested, Not Detected

No sulfur or rotten smells even pre-filter and softener.
Just a tick over 17 grains for hardness, most of which is Calcium (73ppm) Followed by Magnesium (26ppm) Sodium (23ppm) and Silica (19ppm)

The only thing that showed up that caught my attention was the uranium, it's within MCL but it's over the MCL-G of 0.0005.

It really is trace amounts. It's one of those things where if I have the extra tank and head, why not. But I'm not going to drop $1000 on a system for it. If that makes sense.

 

[Reach4]

The only thing that showed up that caught my attention was the uranium, it's within MCL but it's over the MCL-G of 0.0005.

https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-regulations shows a goal of zero for uranium.

I think RO for your drinking water is as close as you are going to get.