Clorinator vs Ozonator

[SDGator]

We just bought a forclosed house out in the country that is on well and septic, but most of the equipment in the well house had been taken out, so we don't really know what the previous owners were doing for water treatment. I've had a couple water filtration folks come out and test the water and make recommendations on what is needed, and I was hoping for some direction on the pros and cons.

The hardness is 17 gpg, pH is 7.5 and TDS is 400. I can't find any results for sulfur or iron in the papers they gave me, though.

The Kinetico folks are recommending a Kinetico 2030 or 735 for softening, and a chlorinator/dechlorinator.

I have an independent guy recommending a softening system and putting an ozonator in the 2500 gallon holding tank.

My main question is, which is a better system...ozonation or clorination, as far as total cost of ownership and reliability, along with any other factors worth considering? I'm not a water professional and am trying to learn what I need to for taking over a well system.

[pawaterguy]

I'd go with the Kinetico quote. Just personal opinion. I haven't seen great results with ozone machines. Get the 2030. That's the one of the two you'll want for reliability. Hopefully, they use a stenner or prominent pump for chlorination. Those 2 are easy to work on/maintain. Without knowing exactly what what you have going on, though...I would be left wondering why chlorination is being used rather than UV assuming it's for bacteria. What were they treating with the chlorine or why did they recommend it?

We just bought a forclosed house out in the country that is on well and septic, but most of the equipment in the well house had been taken out, so we don't really know what the previous owners were doing for water treatment. I've had a couple water filtration folks come out and test the water and make recommendations on what is needed, and I was hoping for some direction on the pros and cons.

The hardness is 17 gpg, pH is 7.5 and TDS is 400. I can't find any results for sulfur or iron in the papers they gave me, though.

The Kinetico folks are recommending a Kinetico 2030 or 735 for softening, and a chlorinator/dechlorinator.

I have an independent guy recommending a softening system and putting an ozonator in the 2500 gallon holding tank.

My main question is, which is a better system...ozonation or clorination, as far as total cost of ownership and reliability, along with any other factors worth considering? I'm not a water professional and am trying to learn what I need to for taking over a well system.

[SDGator]

I'd go with the Kinetico quote. Just personal opinion. I haven't seen great results with ozone machines. Get the 2030. That's the one of the two you'll want for reliability. Hopefully, they use a stenner or prominent pump for chlorination. Those 2 are easy to work on/maintain. Without knowing exactly what what you have going on, though...I would be left wondering why chlorination is being used rather than UV assuming it's for bacteria. What were they treating with the chlorine or why did they recommend it?

Thanks for the quick response!! I was wondering about that myself. I emailed the Kinetico rep earlier today asking about test results for sulfur and iron, and about UV filtering and got the following response:

We didn't test for sulfur because you're using an atmospheric tank.
If there was any iron in that water it is a very small amount and would be taken out by the pre filter. Keep in mind any sort of iron will oxidize in the atmospheric tank.

Ah yes! The UV Light I would strongly suggest over the chlorinator, however the UV Light is $XXXX keep in mind the only up keep with that is to change the bulb once a year.

I'm not sure why she didn't suggest that in the first place. I think she's used to dealing with city water instead of well? Regardless, neither of the folks I got quotes from are really inspiring confidence here. Neither have the test results to back up what they are recommending (ozonator/chlorinator), and I had to mention UV lighting to them before they would recommend it over the more complicated solutions. I just sent them an email asking your question...what was the chlorine supposed to be treating and why did they recommend it.

It sounds like if we have a 2500 gallon water tank, any sulfur or iron will outgas before it gets fed to the house, and if we go with a softener, a carbon sediment filter and a UV light for bacteria hooked up between the tank and the house, we should be in pretty good shape. Or are am I missing some critical piece?

And do we really need an RO system, or can we skip that expense as long as the water tastes okay? Or is that still advised when our water starts out with a TDS of around 400?

[pawaterguy]

Here is my thinking on UV vs chlorine. UV works great in a residential home. It's the last thing water passes through a far as treatment goes. On a standard home this usually does the trick. Where things change is when you get really large (high flows) or farm/dairy applications where you want a chlorine residual going through the system to the bowls the animals drink out of to help keep everything nice and sanitary. This is not necessary in a regular house. You just need to sterilize the water before it gets into the house plumbing. I don't know your area...but, the bulb I use for my standard residential UV unit is 70 bucks plus another 10 for the o-rings. Once a year the unit is drained and taken apart. The sleeve is removed and cleaned (if it gets dirty the light can't penetrate into the water and you don't know how clean it is without taking it apart). I always put new o-rings on again because they're cheap and worth it to know nothing will leak on startup. With a chlorine system you have the pump and the injection site to maintain. Without regular monitoring of your chlorine level you have no idea if it's even working properly. The injection site will need to be cleaned and maintained much more frequently. Even on soft water. Again, the only way you know if it's working is to take it apart and check it out. With the pump you'll either have a diaphragm to change once a year or a roll tube to change every few months. UV is just simpler and easier...and doesn't require the addition of a dechlor tank that will require rebedding (the carbon can only remove so much chlorine before it gets used up...the 1060 from kinetico goes 750,000 gallons at 1 ppm of chlorine last I knew. But, the carbon will also remove other organics from the water that may exist, so rebedding before chlorine starts coming through is ideal as what can happen is the carbon can load up on that other "stuff" and start dumping it through. There's really no way for you to know it's happening. Again...UV is easier so long as you have electric available and it can be installed in a space that works. That's my 2 cents. Hope everything works out for you. Oh, and the RO. TDS at 400 is vague. It's a start...but what accounts for that 400? Do you have nitrates? Generally speaking...good drinking water is going to be at or below 50ppm. At 400 I would most likely recommend it...but, how urgently I would push it depends on things like nitrates which would be a health concern more than some of the other nuisance stuff.