Did you check up the chemical composition (any toxic or heavy metals, fluorides etc?)

RO is perfectly OK and any way is one of the best in the purification technology - removes even the dissolved salts so there is no quality or technology problem (talking from theoretical angle- no practical exposure )

But a lot of them are in operation in India, and that is used for seawater desalination, so must be not too difficult to maintain. But then don't know.

Just googled and some links

http://www.chennaiaquapure.com/F13907/reverse_osmosis_plant.html

http://www.oas.org/dsd/publications/Unit/oea59e/ch20.htm

Also the RO plants may need experts in Operations and mainttenance.

Thanks PWSlack.

We drew some water from the welll before inserting the pump and got it tested. Results seem to be within desirable / permissible limits.

For your info I am giving below the values from the test report:

1) pH : 7.37

2) colour : less than 5 in Hazen units

3) odour : normal un objectionable

4) Turbidity : less than 1

5) TDS : 805 mg / lt

6) chloride : 70 mg / lt

7) Alkalinity as CaCO3 - 70 mg / lt

8) Total hadrness as CaCO3 - 220 mg / lt

9) Iron as Fe - 0.4 mg / lt

10) NO3 - 1.6 mg / lt

11) NO2 - 0.026 mg / lt

Biology?

None of those ranges seem alarming at all....But I agree with PW - what else was tested?

Also - installing & running an RO deck is pretty inexpensive if you need it.

You can add lime (Ca(OH)₂) to the water to raise the pH to 11.0. This will precipitate out calcium (Ca) and magnesium (Mg). Bubbling carbon dioxide (CO₂) till the pH drops to 7.0 will then precipitate the lime out as calcium carbonate (CaCO₃), softening the water. You can then chlorinate, ozonate or irradiate it with UV to disinfect the water.

Don't ever use RO on hard water: it will destroy your membranes in no time.

<...ever use RO on hard water...>

...without antiscalant dosing...

Bacterial contamination has been found to be insignificant and no trace of E-Coli. However to be safer, we intend to get the water disinfected also.

TDS was 805. I understand desirable is 500 and permissible is 2000.

We took the water sample almost immediately after boring. There may have been a little contamination due to pouring of water while boring.

Something else you might want to check into. The local municipality/water authority may not allow you to pipe in this well water into the same piping that supplies your house(s). The premise is that it could back-feed into the municipal supply if that system were to lose pressure due to a shutdown or main break somewhere - and they really won't like having your dirty uncontrolled what-do-you-know-about-water-anyways water going into their ultrapure pristine municipal water.

Years ago, my father-in-law had exactly that situation. He wanted to sell his house, and it was a requirement that it be connected to muni water in order to sell it. And no, just installing a check valve to prevent backflow into a street main was not acceptable. He was required to completely disconnect the pipe into the house from his well - and get this - to put a concrete cap on the top of his well bore to ensure that it could not be reconnected. These people were bleeping water Nazis. Side rant - there's way too much of that !@#$%@ going on with our governments at all levels these days.

jhammond

___________________________

www.patent-innovations.com

FYI the disconnection had nothing to do with water quality, but rather within a municapl system there are not supposed to be any private well systems as they are an accountable source of overdraft on the local water resources that the City is supposed to control. It is a standard practice to require an unused well to be abandoned, and abandoning a well is accordance with State Laws is supposed to always be done in the manner you described. It is done to make sure there is a low risk of foreign biologically active material or surface contamination in runoff from migrating down into the aquifer. They allow you to retain the pre-established water right within a services district until there is a change of property rights, then as part of the change the water system is brought into the District it lies within, this is a common practice and well accepted (otherwise you end up with uncontrolled wells all over a city contaminating the groundwater, and there are probably already a ton of those that have been lost in the past that pose a risk). BTW you could have always disconnected the well and used it for irrigation maybe (in some districts no) just by separating the hosue from the well.

RCE, I fully understand the reasons for the disconnection laws to a point, and in any case, FWIWW, I wanted to point out to Humble Ess that he'd better check carefully to see whether or not he will be permitted to do what he is describing. In many municipalities/counties/whatever in the U.S. at least, he won't be able to. And I understand the reasons for that.

What I found over the top, and what was the basis for my water Nazi characterization which I stand by, is the requirement that my father-in-law cap his well with concrete and take it out of service. He disconnected it from the house as required. The wellhead was 20 feet from the foundation. Who the hell is the government to tell him what to do with his private property? Here in NY we are racing you in CA to the bottom, with overtaxation and idiotic regulations like the above case in point. Pretty soon there won't be anybody left who produces anything to generate the tax revenue that makes the water flow, and all you'll have is a bunch of whiners complaining that their water is down along with everything else they've been handed. I know that a lot of public sector people don't want to hear this, but it's a fact. Anybody doesn't think so, Google "Tom Golisano" and see what the top few hits are about.

End of rant. Nothing personal at you, and your post was very informative.

jhammond

_________________________

www.patent-innovations.com

FYI, nearly every State practices the same abandonment policies, California actually has fairly loose abondonment policies compared to many, in part because we have such a vast and regenerated supply of whole California owned water resources and the largest agricultural industry in the nation. Typically loose groundwater resources policies are practiced in States where they have substantial agriculture, because farmer will have a lot of wells installed way out in no where and it is perceived as overly burdensome to create laws that would force an industry to limit contamination of public resources. Wells are an extremely great source of surface contamination reaching an aquifer, and I believe you indicated that your father was trying to sell the property correct. How do we know that the next guy would not just use the open hole in the ground to dispose of his old motor oil, caked up fertilizer, etc.. I know of a few aquifers contaminated with TCE, and nitrates, where this was the old practice. Oh look a hole in the ground good place to dump this used paint stripper. Keep in mind that in no State does the property own own the groundwater, he just has some rights to use of the resource. Maybe your father would never do this, but the guy he sells to might.

"there's way too much of that !@#$%@ going on with our governments at all levels these days."

Then stop electing dimocraps.

Of course the democrats are not really like the Nazis, so if he feels it is a faschist state it would be the republicans he would not want re-elected as Nazism is an extreme right wing political philosophy (Why do you think all those german corporations like Krupp did so well during the war). On the other hand if he feels it is becoming more like a Stalinist communism then he would not want to re-elect democrats as communism represent a exteme left wing perspective, as did the eventual decline of the french revolution to mob mentality.

Besides people who are griping about how harsh the government regulations are one day will be griping the next about how the government doesn't do anything to protect their _____ (fill-in: freedoms, rights, jobs, businesses, lives, or any other self interest).

The bureaucrats responsible are not elected and, while theoretically controlled by elected representatives, in practice they pretty much do as they like.

And this is what you get for electing the people who look the prettiest on TV, sound nice when the speak, and/or use nice fantasy rhetoric.

Don't bother to Treat the water if you don't have to !!!

RO is high in running and maintenance cost, consider Micro Filter or Ultra Filter if necessary, but first thing first, do you need to spend this money or not ?

Think before you decide.

HUBLE ESS,

As per your statement, the new bore well water tastes good, meaning that the TDS is low.I appreciate your spirit of offering safe drinking water to your co residents.The hardness part accounts for sensitive industrial uses and not for domestic uses. The universal norms do specify that, but we can't treat to that quality, unless and otherwise we doubt possible contaminations.

you may submit the water for local institutes or testing centers for estimation of critical parameters like TDS, Hardness and possible contamination of toxic metals, if you are so curious about purity.

The type of rocks decide the ions content in bore well water. Unless if there is any sensitive contamination from proximate area around, the ground water is supposed to be free from bacteria unlike surface water, which is prone to contaminations. The bad odours if any thing sensed are indicators of bacterial contaminations.

Another simple hint is, if you get good lather to soap addition to your bore well water, the hardness problem is also out of doubt.

Offer your supply and get direct feed back from your counter parts, including your own use trials and decide on the issue.

Apply and check with these simple tips to decide and clear your doubts.

If you intend starting a de-min water supply for drinking water, then go for R.O and other high tech treatments, because it got immense business potentials.

Otherwise , don't add to any cost burdens and complicate yourself. Your intension may be good, but cost and investment could be potential barriers.

Humble Ess,

I was in the environmental lab business and was often sent to private residential communities to perform water sampling for annual regulatory requirements.

First, decide if you are going to be a "supplier". I assume all the residents will pony up to cover the costs of drilling and maintenance. Therefore you have to decide if you fall under EPA rules:

"EPA's rules only apply to "public drinking systems" — government or privately run companies supplying water to 25 people or 15 service connections for more than 60 days of the year."

Second, as stated before, "treat only if required." Most of the operations only added sodium hypochlorite (NaOCL, bleach in 25 gal drums) via a metering pump at the well head before the water entered the holding tank.

Third, Based on your lab results, you do not need treatment beyond sanitizing. Your water hardness is not too bad and the suppliers ALWAYS left it up to the individual residents to determine if they wanted further water treatment in the home. You will probably need a 'RCRA' test for heavy metals, VOC's, (Volitale Organic Compounds) and a bacteriology test for micro-organisms before you begin distribution. These will run around $500-700 total. Every six months you will need the basic chemistry test you already have done. Annually there will be the chemistry, RCRA, and Bac-T tests performed again.

Fourth, I agree with the previous post that the municiality will NOT let you tie into their lines. You may be able to tie in after the meter but I doubt it. You'll definitely need some legal advice about it. It may be that your group will only be able to use the well water for non-potable purpuses, i.e. washing cars & clothes, tiolets, landscape maintenance, etc.

Let me clarify some of the points raised:

1) Local authority now a days insists on having ground level water tank to store the supplied water, which is then pumped to overhead tank to supply to residents. We will either pump the water (may be treated) into the ground level tank or direct to overhead tank. So, there is no possibility of contaminating the local drinking water supply (quality of which itself is sometimes questionable).

2) I understand from you all RO treatment of bore-well water may not be preferable. Can we try some traditional cleaning system with sand / charcoal bed and may be a UV system? We are still expecting reply from some of these water treatment system supply companies.

3) The water is for our own consumption. We have approx. 300 houses in our complex with approx. 1200 residents. The expenditure on treatment, which think should be affordable will be shared by all the residents.

Humble Ess,

When the patient is alright, the Doctor need not prescribe medicines. Likewise, if your borewell water is free from turbidity[check by a glass tumbler/ beaker] and found crytal clear, no need for sand filter. Sand filter is required for turbid, primary/ secondary treated effluent/ sewage and not to fresh water. You may add to turdidity by goinig for a sand filter.

Likewise, if your water is free from odour/ colour the carbon bed is not warrented.

You may add to turdidity by goinig for a sand filter.

Totally false if the sand filter is properly designed.

And properly operated

BWIRE,ACE

I accept both of your points in terms of technicality. The case referred here is almost pure and crystal clear water of good quality. Any bio accumulations, and residues left may add to the turbidity of fresh clear entry water through the system.My post is on that grounds. I expect HUMBLE ESS to post his findings and recommendations he had from the professionals he had met. Regards.

Well, you won't find any clearer water supplied from a natural source, a properly designed and operated sand filter can get you below 0.5 NTU.

RCE,

I am an effluent treatment researcher working on low sludge coagulant systems and my exposure is confined to effluent treatment plants. I am of the opinion that bore well water, without any organic suspended solids unlike surface water can bye pass sand filter. As your case, possible mud contamination can take place in rainy seasons.Is it? In such conditions sand filter can reduce turbidity.

A week back I visited a water supply system from a river barrage for the first time, and could see the importance of sand filter towards reduction of organic turbidity. I think towards safer side,all water treatment systems include sand filters. It could be a statuary requirement also. Regards

Sand filters are really physical screens for solid materials, so it reduces turbidity due to inorganics really well as long as they are large enough. You just need a properly design filter. Most of teh turbidity you get in a well is from fine soil materials, fine sands, silts, maybe some clay size particles, sand filters are ideal for removing these types of materials. They are not suitable for removing dissolved contaminants. In this case you'd use a dual media sand and activated carbon filter system. Mineral suspended solids will be trapped readily by a sand filter.

By the way not all water treatment systems include sand filters, and actually most groundwater wells use no filtration, since in most areas the groundwater is withdrawn from a sandy aquifer, which itself behaves as a filter. In these cases they just use a trap to capture sand that falls out. Sand filters are just a cheap and easy way to remove suspended solids and reduce turbidity. They may not improve water quality however, as the dissolved compounds could be above MCLs.

RCE

Your inputs on sand filter is perfect. Seeing the bulk material requirement and larger volume size, I have tried a new system. This involves a synthetic thick single or double sided surface raised fabric like velvets, being operated with suitable support base can replace heavy sand filters. It's filtration capacity is much better than sand filter, of course you got to make periodic back washes.Regards.

Yes, Sand and activated carbon filter will be more economical and practical, UV is good if you need disinfection.

But, you still need to carry out a complete water sample analysis before you can decide on what system to use, bare in mind that the water quality might change from time to time, so periodic water analysis is also necessary.

If the water is to be distributed, UV sterilization has no residual, so it can be re-infected with bacteria in the distribution network.

This is why chlorine based systems still rule, although combined UV/ozone give good results with the ozone having a short duration residual effect.

Chlorine based systems are also far cheaper to run and the kits for testing are cheap, easily available and easily used by virtually anyone.

Chloramination (chlorine and ammonia injection basically) is another possibility. This has less problems with smell and taste from residual chlorine, reduces chlorine use and is reputed to be more effective with a good residual.

Thanks to everyone for your suggestions.

This will help us in discussing with the water treatment suppliers on different methods and costs involved, and take a decision.

Pl. post the Lab. report of your water sample to srpradeep@hotmail.com so that we can work it out. Also mention about the place of installation.We can provide our service in south india only.