URGENT: Hot Springs Katalox Light Fe/Mn Filters, High Bicarbonate

Users who are viewing this thread

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
I'm really impressed with the on the ground knowledge in these forums. We have kind of an urgent situation and if any of you offer consulting, we would greatly appreciate some closer support than these forums also to help us to get our filters working this week as our family business is hanging on the brink, hinging on getting these filters to work! Interested in anyone's ideas but if you can also consult closer with us, please email me at sean@mortonswarmsprings.com.

We operate a hot springs pools business in northern California and recently installed Katalox Light filters to filter iron and manganese from our hot spring water in order to chlorinate the pools and not have these metals precipitate in the pools and discolor the water brown, green and/or yellow. We are having trouble with getting these new filters to work properly, particularly with the manganese.

Water and filter specs:

Water Source #1 - Hot Springs Source (to be filtered for pools)
108.7 F (and 107 F entering pools after filters)
pH 8.0
TDS 830 ppm
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 530 ppm
Hardness (as CaCO3) 31 ppm
Bicarbonate 650 ppm
Sulfate 0.57 ppm
Nitrate 0 ppm
Sodium 280 ppm
Chloride 130 ppm
Iron 0.140 ppm currently (has been as high as 0.380 ppm)
Manganese 0.050 ppm currently

Water Source #2 - Warm Springs Source (used for drinking water and to backflush tanks)
91 F
pH 7.8
TDS 480 ppm
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 250 ppm
Hardness (as CaCO3) 28 ppm
Bicarbonate 310 ppm
Sulfate < 0.5 ppm
Nitrate 0 ppm
Sodium 130 ppm
Chloride 98 ppm
Iron 0.080 ppm (has been as high as 0.440 ppm)
Manganese 0.140 ppm

Filters:
TANK & CONTROLLER MODEL: Pentair 24X65 COMP 4"T, Clack WS 1.5 El Flow Controller
TEMP LIMITS - TANK = 120 F, CONTROLLER = 110 F, MEDIA = 140 F
TANK VOLUME & WEIGHT: 13.36 ft3, 109 LB
MEDIA: 8 ft3 of Katalox Light media, 528 LBS per tank
TOTAL DRY WEIGHT = 637 LBS per tank
MEDIA BED DEPTH: 31"
GRAVEL/QUARTZ BED: 1 ft3
FREEBOARD: 4.36 ft3 (33% volume, 40% is recommended)
NUMBER OF TANKS: 4
NORMAL SERVICE FLOW RATE: 17.5 gpm per tank (70 gpm total, set to not exceed this flow rate for normal service)
NORMAL SERVICE FLOW RATE: 5.6 gpm / ft2 (divide by 3.14 for 24" tank)
MAXIMUM FLOW RATE: 21 gpm per tank (82 gpm total) = 6.7 gpm / ft2
INLET pH: 8.0
EXIT pH: 8.0
CHLORINE REGENERATION: YES, CONTINUOUS at 1 ppm exiting tank
BACKFLUSH FLOW RATE: 45 gpm
BACKFLUSH FREQUENCY / SCHEDULE:
Moving to daily now, 20 minutes backflush with chlorine @ 45 gpm, 5 minutes rinse @ 20 gpm
Using Warm Source @ 85 F (30 gpm from well pump at 91 F and 15 gpm or so from holding tank at lower temp)

We had a grey color tint to the water exiting the tanks for a number of weeks (especially visible the deeper the pool gets, until its black in the deep end and you couldn't see the bottom!). Then we were advised by Watch Water (who makes KL) that the hot water was not providing enough bed expansion to clean the dust off of the media at 107 F so we switched to using the warm source to backflush at 85 F, which would require less flow to achieve the expansion needed. We were also losing a decent amount of media out of the drain line when backflushing. We ended up having to replace a piston in the control valve of one tank because it got media in it and ground the gears on it. I wondered if the losing of media was because we did not have enough freeboard (40% is recommended and we have 33%). We had to push it on how much media we put in that size tank because of our height restrictions where the tanks are and the need for the 70 gpm total flow. There were DLFCs installed which were keeping the tanks from losing potentially more media but Watch Water recommended we remove those which we did to ensure we get enough options for maximal flow with the warmer water (we could restrict flow on the drain line ourselves using a gate valve and flowmeter if necessary) and instead install top distributor baskets to keep the media from coming through at these higher flow rates (which we did). They recommended 65 gpm with the hot water and we could not achieve this so we switched to using the warm source at average 85 F at about 45 gpm which at that temp they thought would be adequate. They told us to install top distributor baskets of 0.5 mm (#35 mesh) to reduce the chance of clogging over time but will still keep most of the media from going to the drain, but all that was available for our control valve was 0.25-0.3 mm (#50-60 mesh). We are looking into a way to put wire spacers between each mesh opening to modify each basket to be the larger opening size they recommended because we have not found any other available with the correct mesh size. Of course I've seen on the forums what happens to these baskets clogging with oxidized iron over time but I also don't want to lose any more media. Maybe just a maintenance thing over time and to monitor backwash flow to see if it goes down over time. Anyway, with the new top distributors, with the DLFCs removed, and using the warm source with chlorinated 85 F water for 90 minutes backflush each, we finally were able to rinse all of the dust off and the filters ran clear with no grey tint from there.

Now we finally were working on whether the iron and manganese was being filtered or not. Turned out at that point that the iron and manganese was not being filtered at all. But we stopped using chlorine and then the iron started getting filtered completely but not the manganese. Every time we added an oxidant like chlorine or hydrogen peroxide, the iron would stop getting filtered (same amount going in and coming out) and the manganese would actually jump up to being up to 5-9 times coming out of the filters compared to what was going in to the filters. After reading through all of these forums, I'm realizing that we need to be backflushing a lot more than we are, especially now that we are using a better flow rate and cooler water. My experience with Greensand Plus using a mix of the warm and hot sources was that backflushing caused the pools to go green for a week but that may have been related to the ancient bed of gravel that was full of iron in those old tanks that we finally removed. So I was backflush averse, you could say. I actually ran a whole summer season without backflushing once and it ran perfectly the whole time. But this is a different situation it seems, maybe the temperature and bubbles are different now too, see below. So anyway, starting today I'm now backflushing daily for 20 minutes per tank with a 5 minute rinse at 45 gpm from our 85 F warm source.

The other factor I'm considering is the high bicarbonate in our hot water being filtered. This produces quite a bit of bubbles, especially since it takes a good 2.5 minutes to travel from the hot source well (which is also 400 feet deep drawing from a 2" pipe) so there is a lot of time for CO2 to be released in the pipe as it travels towards the pools. We are wondering how much of a factor the bubbles are playing in creating channeling in the media. Do they find and help create the channels and make them deeper along with the water and do the oxidants contribute in making those bubbles more vigorous somehow and/or stir up the oxidized minerals caught along them by the media helping them to break through? Are we getting enough bed expansion to adequately clean the media and disrupt all of the channels? Our tanks are black on the outside but we are going to try and sand the paint off and shine a light to see if we can see the media movement during backflushing, like I saw described on these forums. Assuming the grey tint went away because there was finally enough bed expansion and that is enough - we are hoping.

So our idea is that the more frequent backflushing will minimize possible channeling. And we are also going to try to create some kind of degassing chamber before the KL tanks by using a large 8" stand pipe where water can flow through from the bottom to exit the side around the middle and bubble up to a top release area where a valve can bleed excess CO2. To test the idea we can try this out while the water is running as a concept before looking for a more permanent solution because water would just blow out the top once you turned the water off downstream, so this is not a permanent solution.

Finally, would an aerator be helpful with the bubbles? Would hydrogen peroxide be helpful with the bubbles instead of using chlorine? We're also considering using hydrogen peroxide instead of chlorine for the backflush at least a few times to use its oxygen bubbling effects and its ability to potentially reduce and clean out any built up iron or manganese that has hardened inside the media, if this makes sense?

Also wondering if we need to add sodium hydroxide to bring pH up to 8.5 for manganese filtering like the Watch Water KL website says? pH was above 10 coming out of the tanks to start then came down to 8.4 for awhile, just as was expected, and now it is the same coming out as it is going in - pH 8.0

Thank you everyone for reading and considering. We are going to close for most of the weekdays next week so we can test some of these things out. Our family business is hanging in the balance here and we are losing a lot of revenue because of these disruptions. It's a long story why we are having to test all of this out while being open but circumstances beyond our control made it impossible to test earlier like we had planned. Thanks again for your help!

Sean
 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
Here is our idea for the degassing chamber

signal-2023-06-10-162620_002.jpeg
 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
Also, in terms of bed expansion at 85 F / 30 C, Watch Water provides a chart of bed expansion vs. flow rate for various temperature lines. Here is what I get for 30 C:

Backwash for 30 C Water Temp?
Watch Water recommends 30-35 m/h for most water temperatures including 30 C
30 m/h / 2.44 (gpm/ft2) / (m/h) = 12.3 gpm/ft2
12.3 gpm/ft2 x 3.14 ft2 = 39 gpm (Bed Expansion = 24%)
35 m/h / 2.44 (gpm/ft2) / (m/h) = 14.3 gpm/ft2
14.3 gpm/ft2 x 3.14 ft2 = 45 gpm (Bed Expansion = 27.5%)
40 m/h / 2.44 (gpm/ft2) / (m/h) = 16.4 gpm/ft2
16.4 gpm/ft2 x 3.14 ft2 = 51 gpm (Bed Expansion = 31%)

So at 40 gpm we get about 25% bed expansion and at 50 gpm we get about 30% bed expansion. Our current backflush rate is somewhere in the 45-50 gpm range with sometimes a bit over 50 gpm, so we're getting around 30% expansion assuming the media is moving together well and not solidified anywhere or moving unevenly because of bubbles... Is this enough??

We're wondering if we should open a tank and look inside to see if there is any evidence of channeling or any parts starting to harden on top? Is that something that can be evident from looking inside? If so, maybe we should try some way to vibrate the tank while backflushing, like strap a demo hammer to it to help settle and shake up the sand inside??
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,227
Reaction score
4,526
Points
113
Location
IL
I could work it out, but what diameter are your tanks?

Insufficient backwash GPM can cause problems with KL?

Now if you can see the bed expansion shadow because you have unpainted tanks and a bright light, great.
 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
I could work it out, but what diameter are your tanks?

Insufficient backwash GPM can cause problems with KL?

Now if you can see the bed expansion shadow because you have unpainted tanks and a bright light, great.
Tanks are 24” the bed expansions I calculated from watch water are based on flow per cross-sectional area on a given temperature curve. But yeah would be great to actually see inside. Unfortunately the black paint on the outside is impenetrable as far as I can see. I’m running around 45 gpm which is supposed to be a 28% bed expansion at our 30 C / 85 F water temp if their graph is right…
 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
I’m going to try tomorrow in this order and test after each step is added:

1) reducing service flow in half to 9 gpm per tank instead of 17.5 gpm to improve contact time in the tank
2) add hydrogen peroxide at the wellhead with 2.5 minutes contact time (maximum) before it hits the tanks
3) add NaOH to boost pH to 8.5 just before tanks

Once I can filter both iron and manganese I’m hoping these are the variable to find the sweet spot with. Maybe I’ll try chlorine instead of hydrogen peroxide if it doesn’t work. Then explore ozone if necessary…

Other ideas?
 

Reach4

Well-Known Member
Messages
39,227
Reaction score
4,526
Points
113
Location
IL
I made this table from data from that that same graph.

If you can actually measure the flow out of the drain line during backwash, you can be more confident that you are providing sufficient backwash. If S is the number of seconds to fill a 500 gallon bucket, then the GPM is 300/S.

I think it is hard to backwash at such high flow rates.

index.php
 

Attachments

  • img_kl24.PNG
    img_kl24.PNG
    39.9 KB · Views: 336

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
I made this table from data from that that same graph.

If you can actually measure the flow out of the drain line during backwash, you can be more confident that you are providing sufficient backwash. If S is the number of seconds to fill a 500 gallon bucket, then the GPM is 300/S.

I think it is hard to backwash at such high flow rates.

index.php
Nice this is a great resource, much easier to use than their graph and then have to calculate. We have a flow meter installed and we’re getting 45-50 gpm on the backwash at 30 C so that’s 28-30% bed expansion like I was saying which your table also says. Thanks for this confirmation!
 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
Long day of testing yesterday.

1) We reduced flow in half to 35 gpm (9 gpm per tank) and this had no effect. Iron filtered, manganese not. Manganese was twice source concentration also - 40 ppb at well and before tanks, 90 ppb after the tanks. We left the flow at this lower half rate for the below tests.

2) We added hydrogen peroxide at the well with 5 minutes contact time (normally 2.5 minutes but with half flow now its 5 minutes) ahead of the tanks while it travels through 700 feet of pipe (dosed at half of chlorine amount needed to raise chlorine to 0.8 ppm). Iron started to break through at 60 ppb after the tanks and was 140 ppb at the well and before the tanks. Manganese elevated after the tanks to 140 ppb and stayed at 50 ppb at the well and before the tanks.

3) We kept the hydrogen peroxide going and added sodium hydroxide just before the tanks to pH 8.6. Manganese continued to break through at the same elevated level of 150 ppb. Iron levels after the tanks elevated to 110 ppb.

4) We stopped hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydroxide inputs. We switched to chlorine at the well, dosed to 0.8 ppm before the tanks, again after 5 minutes contact time in the pipes. After the tanks, iron level stayed at the source well level of 140 ppb, completely breaking through, a bit worse than hydrogen peroxide. Same levels were found at the well and before the tanks. Manganese showed the same as with hydrogen peroxide - 50 ppb at the well and before the tanks and an elevated 120 ppb after the tanks.

4) Chlorine was left on and NaOH was added again to pH 8.6. After the tanks, iron levels stayed at 130 ppb and Manganese levels dropped a small amount to 100 ppb, but still very elevated compared to 50 ppb at the well source.

5) Turned chlorine off and added no oxidizer. Turned on sodium hydroxide before tanks to pH 8.6. After the tank iron levels dropped again to 0 ppb. After tank manganese levels stayed at the elevated 100 ppb (still double the source 50 ppb).

6) Increased pH to 9.0 using sodium hydroxide with no oxidizer. Manganese dropped back to almost source level 60 ppb so not elevated anymore.

7) Left pH at 9.0 with sodium hydroxide and dropped flow in half again to 18 gpm (4.5 gpm per tank). Manganese remained at the same level of 60 ppb.

Using oxidants (hydrogen peroxide or chlorine) with large contact time (up to 5 minutes), adjusting pH (up to 9.0) and adjusting flow (down to 1/4 the flow rate) are all not improving manganese removal. Currently, using the KL at regular flow with no oxidant and at normal source pH of 8.0 is so far the most effective combination we have tried, leaving 0 ppb iron and not elevating manganese from the source level of 50 ppb after the tanks, but also not filtering it.

It's possible the oxidation is happening but for whatever reason the oxidized manganese is not getting actually filtered. Adding oxidants is perhaps having overoxidizing effects that lead to elevated manganese levels rather than reduced. We don't currently have a way to test for the oxidation state of the manganese leaving the tanks. But if we can add a sediment filter and it reduces manganese, then it would indicate oxidation is happening but filtration is not. Today we are looking for a small 1 micron sediment filter we can attach to a small portion of the outlet water coming from the tanks to test this idea.

The other observation we make is that there are a lot of bubbles that come from this water through the filters likely because its high in bicarbonate (650 ppm) and thus alkalinity (530 ppm). Any water source with bicarbonate over 500 ppm is classified as a soda spring, which this is. So its lightly bubbly, carbonated water. Also we witnessed an increase in bubbles when we added the oxidants, which led to a reduction in filtering capacity. We are wondering if the bubbles are causing "reverse" channelling as they are forced down the tank but are also being released by the media oxidation of the bicarbonate and floating up the tank. So we are still working on a degassing chamber in line before the tanks to test this idea in as simple and inexpensive a way as possible.

Potentially if oxidation is working by the media alone but the bubbles are disrupting the filtration, especially of manganese, then a sediment filter after the KL may be necessary. Or if we can reduce the bubbles, perhaps the KL filters will gain the capacity to filter the oxidized manganese.
 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
Ok today we tried the 0.5 micron sediment filter and no change on the manganese concentration. It kind of makes sense because when we fill our pools with the 0 iron reading but 60 ppb manganese reading water, its blue. But as soon as we add chlorine it turns brown with a tinge of green. So it seems the Manganese is not getting oxidised to +4 and passing through still in the +2 oxidation state. Best thing we can think of is ozone for this, which we haven't tried.

Or once we de-bubble the water, perhaps the oxidation by an oxidant or the KL will proceed more efficiently. We are checking to see if the parts are on hand at the local plumbing supply for the de-bubbler which we are pretty sure will work, at least in testing conditions, to see if this is a factor or not.

Here are some videos of the amount of bubbles coming through these tanks - quite significant it seems!

 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
Ok we tested the warm spring only with no oxidant (70 gpm and 91 F). No bubbles at first then more after an hour but not as much as the hot spring. It seems the filter tanks have to build up enough air at the top of the tank before the bubbles start getting forced through. Under these conditions we saw the first actual drop of manganese, from 110 ppb to 70 ppb and iron from 90 ppb to 0 ppb. Adding NaOH to pH 9.0 had no effect in this case. This made us think perhaps the bubbles could be a factor.

We completed the de-bubbler and tested it out after that on the hot spring but did not register a change in the manganese level and bubbles were still coming through even though none were coming out of the de-bubbler which was working great and releasing a lot of gas continuously. We believe the KL media itself is liberating bubbles from the bicarbonate. So we tried hydrogen peroxide at the well to try to liberate as much bubbles as we could from the bicarbonate before the de-bubbler, hoping the KL would have less of an effect in terms of bubbles. The more H202 we added, the more manganese came through the tanks though unfortunately. The source has 40 ppb Mn, and Mn went to 130 ppb, 280 ppb, then 410 ppb with addition of more and more H202, with the rise coming directly after the tanks and not elevated before. Bubbles continued to be high after the tanks.

Then we thought perhaps if we add acid at the well, this would shift the bicarbonate equilibrium more towards bubbles before the de-bubbler than the hydrogen peroxide. So we added acid at the well to shift pH from 8.0 to 7.8 then to 7.6 as it entered the tanks. Manganese stayed elevated at 250 ppb.

No luck whatsoever in filtering manganese. Our latest idea is that the KL is just too aggressive for our water and our conditions are almost too ideal (pH 8.0) where the oxidation is too much. We've heard of a situation that can happen with ozone where if the dose is to high then you can over-oxidize manganese from the soluble +2 to insoluble +4 (which is normally filtered) and then beyond to the +7 state (which is soluble and passes through the filters). Perhaps this is happening for us with no oxidant and when we add an oxidant its going even further and over-oxidizing the MnO2 coating on the media itself. Where else would the excess Manganese coming out of the tanks be coming from other than from the media itself? Especially since we are not filtering manganese at all so there couldn't be a build up of Manganese either. One last idea we had to try was to drop the pH to 7.0 just before the tanks, in an effort to ease up the oxidation by the media and perhaps prevent over-oxidation.

We are considering a pilot study with a small scale test of the two other medias available, Filter-Ox and Greensand Plus. This will take 2 weeks to get the materials and test with. We are also considering getting Greensand Plus shipped to swap out the media, without testing, because this job alone will also take 2 weeks to get the material, install it, and get things up and running again. If we do the pilot study and then swap the media, we're looking at a month. Its just not economically feasible for us to close for that long with our short summer season. So we're leaning towards just swapping out the media for Greensand Plus. Especially because we had success with it in the past. We had hoped to not need the complication of managing oxidant injection with the KL, but that seems to have been a mistake. Looks like we're heading back to the Greensand Plus.

The other reason is after we talked to a highly recommended installer in Santa Cruz, he also reported that Greensand Plus works in the largest variety of applications and so he doesn't use anything else. The other medias work better in some cases but don't work at all in others, so he doesn't take the risk. He also always designs his systems for 3 gpm/ft2 rather than 6 gpm/ft2 which is what KL says it can do and Greensand Plus even says it can go up to 12 gpm/ft2 in some cases. He then says you may be able to go up to 4, 5 or 6 gpm/ft2 if you're lucky but don't count on it. That's how he has had the most consistent success across the board for now over 60 years. And he always uses chlorine, sometimes an aerator if its just iron and no manganese, but never hydrogen peroxide or ozone. He's an OG and sometimes its good to hear from the OG and see what has worked in the most conservative way. He also mentioned a colloidal manganese that can be present that is un-filterable, but this is an insoluble oxidised version that is found in more acidic water with a higher, more positive ORP than ours (sulfur in our water indicates a negative ORP), so not likely here, but he has run across cases of that from time to time as well. Finally, he said one good test to see if its the more soluble reduced version of manganese we likely have, is to run the source water through a softener and if it pulls the manganese out then its a soluble version. This of course is not an option for us, as a mineral spring, but that's a good test. Finally he said it would be good to test as a part of a pilot study a final membrane filter down to 0.2 micron in case that could help catch any insoluble oxidised manganese.

So we're getting quotes and lead times and leaning strongly towards ordering Greensand Plus on Monday to swap the media. We're pretty disappointed and this is costing us a ton of money. But we've learned not to take for granted one media is better than another because it looks better on paper. If we ever try a new media again, we will definitely be doing a pilot study...
 
Last edited:

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
$2,000 cash prize offered for anyone who can come up with a chemical addition that will allow Katalox Light to work in the way that Greensand Plus has worked for us in the past! (must receive answer in next week maximum to receive full cash prize)

If they are both MnO2 coated medias, its very surprising to us that there is not some way to chemically alter the water before it enters the Katalox Light media bed to get the effect that we need! Would be great to not have to spend weeks switching out the media if there is some chemical intervention we haven't tried...
 

hydrosean

New Member
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Glen Ellen, CA
Ok as we move forward with replacing the media with Greensand Plus, I've been going through all of the Greensand Plus literature. It seems that the two issues we're seeing, ability to filter iron but not manganese and that the iron breaks through and the manganese comes through at multiples the source concentration when an oxidant is used - it seems these are both well known issues that have clear explanations for their causes as well as clear procedures for correcting with Greensand Plus. According to the Greensand Plus troubleshooting and their excellent and informative overview document, and assuming the manganese dioxide coating behaves similarly between Katalox Light and Greensand Plus, our best thinking at this point is that the KL media may be:
  1. Iron fouled (from not having enough oxidant fed continuously so the grains are getting coated in iron oxide from the media being used as the oxidant, reducing the strength of the media so it can only oxidize iron and not manganese). This may have begun when we had a delay in our ability to fully backflush.
  2. Leaching manganese (and iron from the iron fouling) from the media into the effluent when an oxidant is used continuously (from the media grains being used as an oxidant more than as a catalyst for a long period of time so the grains are in a depleted/reduced state where they are a less strong catalyst or oxidizing agent now for oxidizing manganese). When the oxidant comes into contact with the depleted/reduced manganese dioxide, as I understand it, the oxidant is able to oxidize the manganese dioxide coating, releasing manganese, whereas when the manganese dioxide coating is in the charged, oxidized state, the chlorine will oxidize the manganese and iron in the water but not the manganese dioxide coating anymore, and allow the manganese dioxide coating to act more as a catalyst that makes sure that the oxidation proceeds to completion and the precipitate is captured.
The solution proposed to prevent iron fouling for is:
  • Use more oxidant during continuous regeneration so as to prevent iron fouling as well as to keep the state of manganese dioxide as a fully charged, "regenerated" catalyst and not getting depleted/reduced by being used as an oxidizing agent.
The solution proposed to prevent manganese leaching and clean the iron fouling and regain the catalyst ability of the manganese dioxide to oxidize manganese in concert with the continuous feed of chlorine to be used for primary oxidation is:
  • Perform a regeneration in a high concentration of chlorine (0.2 gallons of 12% chlorine per cubic foot diluted into 6.5 gallons of water) that sits in the tank for a minimum of 4 hours to both regenerate the media into a charged/oxidizing/catalytic state of manganese dioxide, which also removes any iron fouling that has accumulated.
It's now too late to try this because we need to change the media on Monday before our business is completely destroyed by all of this because we no longer have any time to try things that are not proven or endorsed by the experience of the makers of the KL media, Watch Water. So my questions for Watch Water at this point are:
  1. Do you have a troubleshooting document like this to support installers/consumers with diagnosing issues like the ones we have, explaining clear causes and providing actionable responses/remedies to particular issues that develop?
  2. Do you have procedures to both restore functionality as well as prevent its recurrence when there is iron fouling and/or manganese leaching?
  3. And if the answer to the above two questions is no, would you be willing to support us to purchase the Greensand Plus media since you do not yet have procedures for dealing with these known issues with your own media yet?
This is where we are at. I will update you all with their response, but so far they say they are not liable and keep trying to say we have mishandled the media and do not offer any way of getting it back on track.

Finally, I also wonder, if the Greensand Plus is specifically shipped NOT in regenerated form because it's more stable, isn't it possible the Katalox Light being shipped in regenerated form could cause it to go flat if left on the shelf for too long? Why not ship Katalox Light in a more stable NOT regenerated form?

We sincerely hope that Watch Water has a good answer to these questions and clear troubleshooting steps for the future. In the meantime, we're going to go with a company that does. If anything shifts of course we will update here.
 
Last edited:
Top
Hey, wait a minute.

This is awkward, but...

It looks like you're using an ad blocker. We get it, but (1) terrylove.com can't live without ads, and (2) ad blockers can cause issues with videos and comments. If you'd like to support the site, please allow ads.

If any particular ad is your REASON for blocking ads, please let us know. We might be able to do something about it. Thanks.
I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks