EPA-6 60/2-74-007
February 1974
Environmental Protection Technology Series
Industrial Water Softener
Waste Brine Reclamation
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION TECHNOLOGY series. This series
describes research performed to develop and
demonstrate instrumentation, equipment and
methodology to repair or prevent environmental
degradation from point and non-point sources of
pollution. This work provides the new or improved
technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality
standards.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does
not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA-660/2-74-007
February 1974
INDUSTRIAL WATER SOFTENER WASTE BRINE RECLAMATION
By
Jim Burton
and
Ed Kreusch
Project No. 12120GLE
Program Element No. 1BB037
Project Officer
Vem W. Tenney
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.95
-------
ABSTRACT
Where discharge of brine wastes from water softener regeneration to
sewers or receiving streams is undesirable because of possible
pollution, there are two alternatives:
1. Hauling the total brine waste.
2. Partial hauling with reclamation and reuse of the brine.
Brine reclamation and reuse has been studied for one year at a central
regeneration plant for portable ion exchange water softeners. The
process is modified lime-soda softening and is operated in daily
batches.
This process produces a 95% sodium chloride brine at 60° Salometer.
This is perfectly acceptable for reuse as a regenerant brine. The
lime-soda softening sludge is the only waste. The volume of the waste
is 11% of the waste brine from which it came. The solids of the sludge
are insoluble and can be disposed of in many environmentally acceptable
ways.
This process is feasible technically, but is marginal economically.
Costs of reclamation are higher for this specific plant, than costs of
hauling. The economics will differ for each plant, depending primarily
on trucking and disposal fees. Each plant must be given a separate
cost study. However, the reduction of salt discharge by 89% clearly
indicates the ecologic value of reclamation and reuse.
Though capital expenditures were modest and reclamation operating costs
are low, the present space has been found to be larger than is
necessary and it is indicated that future study, under the new budget,
could reduce capital and operating costs. Further studies into the
de-watering of the sludge could make this minimal waste disposal even
more environmentally acceptable.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 12120 GLE,
under the partial sponsorship of the Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Environmental Protection Agency.
11
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1 CONCLUSIONS 1
2 RECOMMENDATIONS 4
3 INTRODUCTION 6
4 OBJECTIVES 8
5 METHOD 9
Building & Equipment 9
Process Outline 15
Process Optimization 18
Process Demonstration 36
Material Balances 40
Economic Evaluation 46
Environmental Impact 51
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 54
7 GLOSSARY 55
8 REFERENCES 58
9 APPENDICES 59
iii
-------
FIGURES
Figure
1. Flow Diagram - Brine Reclamation Plant 10
2. Storage Vessel 11
3. Reactor Tank 11
4. Addition of Chemicals to Conveyer Hopper 12
5. Chemical Feeder on Top of Reactor 12
6. Chemical Analysis Section 13
7. Electrical Control Panel 13
8. Sludge and Brine Transfer Equipment 14
9. Sludge Discharge to Tank Truck 14
10. Amount of Hydrochloric Acid to Adjust Brine pH to
6.5-8.0. Optimum Dosages of Lime and Soda Ash. 21
11. Amount of Hydrochloric Acid Used to Adjust Brine
pH to 6.5-8.0. Soda Ash Only Used. 22
12. Amount of Hydrochloric Acid to Adjust Brine pH to
6.5-8.0. Optimum Dosages of Lime and Soda Ash. 23
13. Treated Brine Magnesium Hardness as Functions of
Soda Ash Dosage and Reaction Time. 27
14. Treated Brine Calcium Hardness, as Functions of
Soda Ash Dosage and Reaction Time, 28
i
15. Treated Brine pH, as Functions of Soda Ash
Dosage and Reaction Time. 29
16. Treated Brine Magnesium Hardness, as Functions
of Hydrated Lime Dosage and Reaction Time. 30
iv
-------
Figure Page
17. Treated Brine pH, as Functions of Hydrated Lime
Dosage and Reaction Time. 31
18. Effect of Chemical Addition on Remaining Calcium
Hardness. 33
19. Effect of Chemical Addition on Remaining Magnesium
Hardness. 34
20. Effect of Chemical Addition on pH. 35
21. Flow Diagram - Brine Reclamation Plant. 86
22. Flow Diagram - Transfer of Waste Brine to Reactor
Tank. 98
23. Flow Diagram - Chemical Addition and Recirculation
of Reactants. 10°
24. Flow Diagram - Decanting Brine to Brine Pit. 102
25. Flow Diagram - Sludge Discharge.
-------
TABLES
Table Paj
1. Acid Requirement Based on Chemical Types Used 24
2. Solubility of Compounds 24
3. Calculation of Soda Ash Dosage 37
4. Test Data Summary 38
5. Calculation of Hydrated Lime Dosage 39
6. Bench Test Results 40
7. Salt Balance Based on Salometer Readings 41
8. Water Balance 42
9. Conversion Factors 43
10. Salt and Chemical Balance 44
11. Sludge Balance 45
12. Depreciation Costs 47
13. Reclamation System Costs 49
14. Cost Comparison 50
15. Comparison of Materials Used 52
16. Comparison of Materials Discharged 53
17. Analyses of Laboratory Reactions Solutions - 81
Soda Ash Only.
18. Analyses of Laboratory Reaction Solutions - 82
Lime Only.
vi
-------
Table Page
19. Analyses of Laboratory Reaction Solutions -
Soda Ash and Lime 83
vii
-------
SECTION 1
CONCLUSIONS
The regeneration of ion exchange water softeners produces a waste brine
consisting of the mixed chlorides of calcium, magnesium and sodium.
This study demonstrates that a modified lime-soda softening process
will remove the contaminating calcium and magnesium and produce a
purified brine suitable for immediate reuse.
1. This study has conclusively demonstrated that discharge of
soluble wastes from water softener regeneration can be
virtually eliminated, thus reducing potential pollution of
streams and ground water resources. Discharges of soluble
salts to receiving waters are reduced by 89%.
2. This is an almost classic example of immediate recycling of
waste material. Within 24 hours the waste brines have been
treated and are back in use. Acceptably high levels of
purity and concentration are readily maintained.
3. The volume of the untreated waste is shown to be reduced by
about Ql% by this process. The present waste, a sludge, is
hauled by tank truck to a site where the included solubles
cannot enter the streams or ground water aquifers of the area.
Present knowledge indicates that the sludge could be further
concentrated to form a filter cake. It is believed that this
could be disposed of as a solid waste.
I
4. High percentages of salt recovery have been achieved by
direct reuse of the brine.
5. All operations, including chemical dosages, have been devel-
oped for operation by non-professional people.
6. Recirculation of the reacting chemicals was found to be
necessary to assure complete solution and reaction. At the
same time sludge solidification was prevented at the bottom
of the reactor cone and in the discharge lines.
7. It was found that the addition of both soda ash and lime was
-------
desirable, even though lime was not needed to produce the
desired quality in the reclaimed brine. Soda ash alone
reduced the concentrations of calcium and magnesium to
acceptable levels. Lime did reduce the magnesium concentra-
tion, but more importantly, 'the lime improved sludge
settlability, and reduced the acid requirement for subsequent
pH adjustment.
8. For this specific plant, current study shows that costs of
brine reclamation are significantly higher than are costs for
the alternate procedure of hauling wastes to an improved
dumping site. However, capital charges are high for this
particular plant. Further study could reduce capital charges,
labor needs and perhaps chemical usage.
Considering the costs for regenerating the water softeners
(salt, water, waste disposal), the following conclusions
apply.
A. Chemical costs are about 10% less when the wastes are
reclaimed than when the wastes are hauled. That is,
the added costs for lime and soda ash are less than
is the value of salt and water reclaim by their use.
B. Depreciation costs for building and equipment at this
location with this equipment are about 55% less than
the separate chemical costs for regeneration and
waste disposal.
C. Hauling costs for sludge disposal are about 32% of
similar costs for hauling waste brine in the
alternate procedure.
D. The additional operating, non-technical, labor costs
are about 69% as large as the separate chemical costs
for regeneration and waste disposal.
E. The comparable partial costs for regenerating each
water softener are as follows:
$0.165 discharge all waste to sewers
$0.137 discharge 70% of waste to sewers,
reuse 30%
$0.243 haul 70% of waste, reuse 30%
$0.305 reclaim 90% of waste, haul 10%
9. The reduction in waste volume and in the amount of waste
soluble salts makes this process more environmentally
acceptable than total haulage of brine.
10. For this specific plantthere is no marked daily variation in
-------
chemical dosage requirements,
-------
SECTION 2
RECOMMENDATIONS
The information obtained from this project should be disseminated. The
technical and economic conclusions should be considered where disposal
of untreated water softener waste brines can adversely affect the
environment.
The present plant has been most successful. With no changes, it can
continue in operation at its present location. Dealer personnel have
been trained and can operate the plant. After all projects are com-
pleted, the present plant should be turned over to the Riverside
Dealership, on terms acceptable to the Dealership and to the Government.
Although the present study shows that brine reclamation is technically
feasible, further study is indicated in the following areas:
AREA 1: The present waste is a watery sludge. It must be transported
to an acceptable discharge point. Truck operating costs and dumping
fees are major items in the costs of brine reclamation.
If the sludge could be de-watered to form a cake, it could be handled
as a solid waste.
It is recommended that development of a method for complete de-watering
be carried out at the present site by present personnel.
AREA 2s Dosages of soda ash were determined, for each batch, by
chemical analysis. As an extension of this present project, dosages
based on pH changes should be studied. If dosages based on pH changes
produce results equal to those based on analysis, the process would be
simplified from the present manual type of operation and would be
preliminary to the development of a continuous process.
It is recommended that this study be carried on at the present site and
with present personnel.
AREA 3: The present batch process requires three tanks of 3000 gallons
capacity each. This large volume of storage increases costs of build-
-------
ing and equipment.
Continuous operation would reduce the space requirement and by reducing
labor could reduce operating costs.
To operate continuously, two conditions must be met. The first is that
lime and soda ash feeds must be matched to the flow rate of the brine
and to the concentrations of calcium and magnesium in the waste brine.
The second condition is to remove, continuously, the precipitated
calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide.
There are strong indications that chemical dosage can be adjusted by a
pH controller. Rapid separation of the solids from the liquid brine is
another matter. However, Laminar flow separation, centrifugal
separation, and a sludge blanket modification merit preliminary investi-
gation.
Continuous operation can be studied at the present site by present
personnel. An extended project will be necessary with some added equip-
ment needed. It is recommended that this study be undertaken with full
governmental cooperation.
AREA 4: The present study showed little daily variation in soda ash
dosage. Lime dosage was constant from day to day. It is expected that
in some areas the daily variation will be marked.
This daily variation in dosage rates could be studied as a possible
alternative to chemical analysis and/or pH changes for control of
chemical dosages.
However, another location is suggested as a site for this study.
AREA 5: Since the present study showed little variation in chemical
dosage per gallon, it is quite possible that a simple feeder (for mixed
lime and soda ash) actuated and controlled by a pacing meter could
produce satisfactory results.
This could be studied at the pre'sent site by present personnel. Some
modification of present equipment would be required. Additional
equipment would need to be purchased.
It is recommended that this dosage control method be studied.
AREA 6: The present study shows that brine reclamation does reduce
discharge of salt to the environment; it also shows that it is
expensive. No effort was made during the study to develop more effi-
cient chemical handling or other techniques for labor reduction.
Approximately 45# of the costs for reclamation are labor costs.
Therefore, it is recommended that study be continued to reduce labor
costs.
-------
SECTION 3
INTRODUCTION
Ion exchange water softeners are regenerated with sodium chloride brine,
usually at a strength of 40 to 60 degrees salometer (°S) which corre-
sponds to 10-16% sodium chloride by weight.
A sufficient excess (180 to 220%) of sodium chloride above the
stoichiometric equivalent is required to produce an equilibrium
favorable to hardness ion elution. The effluent from this recharge
will be a solution of mixed sodium, calcium and magnesium chlorides.
Normal regeneration techniques are such that the effluent can be con-
veniently separated into three fractions:
1. Rinse waters low enough in salt to be discharged in the
most convenient manner without risk of damage to the
environment.
2. Brines high enough in concentration to produce risk of
damage to the environment if discharged without treatment.
These brines are usually mixed chlorides of calcium,
magnesium and sodium.
3. Final rinse water, low in hardness but containing salt.
This need not be discharged. After reconstitution with
fresh salt, it can be used for regeneration. This
reduces salt discharged and effects a small salt saving.
For this study, only fraction number 2 is under consideration. It
cannot be reused for regeneration, even though it contains a large
excess of sodium chloride, because the high concentrations of hardness
ions make it ineffective.
This fraction contains the largest portion (about 90%) of the soluble
salts and because of this is sometimes thought to be a hazard to the
environment if it is discharged without modification or control.
Fraction number 2 can be disposed of by hauling to approved dumping
sites. However, this is expensive. Removal of calcium and magnesium •
-------
from the waste regenerant permits its reuse. Lime-soda softening was
used in this study to selectively remove calcium and magnesium ions
from this waste brine.
Hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide or Ca(OH)2) and soda ash (sodium
carbonate or Na^Og) are normally used as chemicals for the precipita-
tion of hardness (magnesium and calcium) ions. These chemicals do not
react with the sodium chloride.
Magnesium chloride will react with the lime to precipitate insoluble
magnesium hydroxide to form an equivalent amount of calcium chloride as
illustrated in the equation:
MgCl2 + Ca(OH)2 =»- Mg(OH)2 + CaCl2 (l)
The calcium chloride formed in this reaction reacts with soda ash as
does the calcium chloride in waste brine. This forms an insoluble
precipitate of calcium carbonate. The reaction forms an equivalent
amount of sodium chloride as is illustrated in the equation:
CaCl2 + Na2C03 =— CaC03 + 2 NaCl (2)
Equations (l) and (2) can be written together to illustrate two
reactions which take place simultaneously, equation (3):
MgCl2 + CaCl2 + Ca(OH)2 + 2 Na2C03
5»-4NaCl + 2CaC03 + Mg(OH)2 (3)
Shown here is the net effect, which is to convert calcium and magnesium
chlorides to an equivalent amount of sodium chloride plus insoluble
precipitates. Removal of the insoluble precipitates allows the sodium
chloride to be reused for the regeneration of softeners.
The use of solutions for chemical feed would add excessive amounts of
water, which would dilute the reclaimed brine below the desired concen-
trations. Subsequent reconstitution to the desired strength would
result in more brine than was needed for regeneration. Therefore,
chemicals must be fed in the dry state.
This application of lime-soda softening was not studied in depth prior
to this project.
Theoretical studies and small scale practical studies indicated that
the process was technically feasible and economically interesting.
Factual data were lacking. Therefore, the project was undertaken to
establish full scale feasibility and cost data.
-------
SECTION 4
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the present study were as follows:
1. Establish a plant to apply the lime-soda softening
process to the waste brine from the regeneration of
ion exchange water softeners.
2. Optimize the process by actual operation, and to
determine the detailed performance of the process.
3. Demonstrate the process over an extended period to
determine its economic feasibility and to determine
its usefulness in reducing waste discharges to the
environment.
8
-------
SECTION 5
METHOD
BUILDING AND EQUIPMENT
For this project, the facility for regenerating portable ion exchange
softeners at Riverside, California was chosen.
As part of the project, a building additiqn 30' x 25' x 17'-4" (LWH)
was planned and built. A part of this construction was a permanent
reclaimed brine storage tank. This was below floor level and built to
contain 4000 .gallons (11* x 81 x 6').
The equipment included a waste brine recovery tank, and a reaction tank
with a conical bottom. Auxiliary equipment included piping, chemical
conveying, and feeding equipment. All controls were manually operated
for full flexibility. Figure 1 is a flow diagram showing the dimen-
sions of the various tanks, the pipe sizes and the capacities. Figures
2 through 9 are pertinent photographs of the plant, showing components
and analytical facilities. Chemical analyses were important for
process control and evaluation.
An obsolete oil tank truck was used to carry the waste sludge to the
disposal pond maintained by the City of Riverside.
Chemicals were stored within the building addition.
Two major changes were made to t!he equipment during optimization. The
first was to rearrange the piping so that the sludge transfer pump
could be used for mixing by recirculation. The second was to install a
single large .pipe for decanting the clear, reclaimed brine. These
changes will be discussed later in this section.
Only minor modification of the existing equipment of the regeneration
plant was required to deliver the regenerant waste brine to the waste
brine storage tank.
-------
Conveyor Hopper
Chemical Conveyor
Waste Brine
Storage Tank
9'OD x 7'
Reactor Pump
-Brine Pool Pump
Sludge Truck
Brine Pool
149"OD x 4'
Reactor Mixer
Feeder Valve
Reactor Tank: 9'OD, 7'Side
-Brine Pump
Reclaimed Brine'
Brine Pit
11' x 8' x 6'
I
Figure 1 . Flow Diagram - Brine Reclamation Plant,
-------
Figure 2. Storage Vessel
Figure 3. Reactor Tank
-------
:1
Figure 4. Addition of Chemicals to
Conveyor Hopper
Figure 5. Chemical Feeder on
Top of Reactor
-------
Figure 6. Chemical Analysis Section
Figure 7. Electrical Control Panel
13
-------
Figure 8. Sludge and Brine Transfer Equipment
Figure 9. Sludge Discharge to Tank Truck
14
-------
PROCESS OUTLINE
Large quantities of salt are used for the regeneration of portable ion
exchange water softeners. The regeneration effluent is usually
discharged to the city sewerage system or other convenient receiver.
It is thought by some that this salt has a deleterious effect on the
environment. In order to fully discuss the utility of the present
study, an outline of the ion exchange softener process is in order.
Hard water is water which contains calcium and magnesium ions. Some
other metallic ions can cause water to be hard, but their presence in
natural waters is rare.
The ions of calcium and magnesium react with soap to form insoluble
salts. These insolubles are inherently undesirable. In addition, the
hardness in water wastes soap uselessly, because all of the hardness
must be removed by reaction with soap before cleaning can proceed.
This is an inefficient way to soften water (to remove the hardness).
There are several ways to remove hardness but for many reasons ion
exchange is most convenient for home softening. Ion exchange is also
used in many large municipal hardness reduction plants and for
softening water for industry.
There are many substances which exhibit ion exchange properties. Only
one or two have sufficient capacity for exchange along with other
properties which make them suitable for use in softeners. One is
inorganic zeolite and the term, "Zeolite" has become almost generic
for ion exchange substances. The other is an organic resin. The
hardness removal reactions of both materials are similar. In
discussing these reactions, the letter "Z" will be used as a symbol for
the ion exchange material.
Also for convenience, only the symbol for calcium (Ca) will be used
because magnesium (Mg) will react similarly. Chloride ions are also
present and will be represented by the chemical symbol for chlorine
(Cl.)
i
Sodium ions do not react adversely with soap. "Na" is the symbol for
sodium, while NaCl is the formula for sodium chloride used to
regenerate the ion exchanger.
•2NaCl + CaZ (4)
This can be read, "Calcium chloride in water reacts with sodium zeolite
to form sodium chloride in water and calcium zeolite". The influent
water containing calcium chloride is hard - due to the calcium - while
the effluent water, containing an equivalent amount of sodium chloride,
is soft.
Obviously, when the zeolite has given up all the sodium it contains, it
15
-------
can no longer soften water. It is then said to be exhausted. Practical
considerations do not permit complete utilization of the capacity. The
lesser usable capacity is obtained when the effluent water contains
hardness in an amount equal to a small fraction of the influent hardness.
The zeolite can be regenerated or recharged. The equation for recharge
is as follows:
CaZ + 2NaCl 5»- Na2Z + CaCl2 (5)
It will be noted that equation (5) is exactly the reverse of equation
(4). The reaction represented by equation (4) occurs in very dilute
solution where the zeolite "prefers" calcium to sodium.
At high concentrations, the calcium/sodium preference is reversed.
This forces" the sodium onto the zeolite and "forces" the calcium from
the zeolite. To further force the regeneration, excess salt is
applied. In portable softeners, high capacities are desired to reduce
the regeneration frequency. Thus, 15 pounds of salt are used for each
cubic foot of ion exchanger. Only 5 pounds are theoretically needed.
The unused 10 pounds are no longer useful because of the calcium and
magnesium contaminants.
Since the contaminants in the waste brine are hardness, their removal
requires a softening process. Lime-soda softening is probably the
oldest method of softening. Prior to this project, preliminary bench
tests were made using lime-soda softening. The process was found to
be technically possible, however, simple arithmetic showed it to be
economically impractical. Later, interest revived because of the
possible need for environment protection. Pilot plant tests were made
using 10 portable exchange units per day. Again it was found that the
process worked, but was expensive.
Pressures by various public agencies to reduce salt wastes discharged
to the environment resulted in the present study. The process uses
these steps:
1. Waste brine storage.
2. Volume measurement, chemical analysis and transfer of
waste to reactor.
3. Determination of chemical dosage.
4. Feed of lime and soda ash to brine in the reactor.
5. Agitation.
6. Sedimentation.
7. Decantation of clear brine.
16
-------
8. Sludge draw-off.
9. pH and concentration adjustment of the purified brine.
10. Storage of purified brine.
11. Reuse of purified brine.
Each of these steps will be discussed.
Waste Brine Storage was in a steel open top tank of approximately 3000
gallon capacity. This volume was chosen since it readily accommodated
the waste produced in one day. The tank was lined with an epoxy coat-
ing to reduce the corrosfbn which would otherwise result from contact
with the brine.
Volume.. Measurement was accomplished by means of calibrating the waste
brine-storage tank. Transfer was with a motor driven centrifugal
pump. Waste brine analysis, along with its volume, determined the
chemical dosage. The calcium and magnesium concentrations were
determined by an EDTA (versenate) titration. Density expressed in
degrees salometer was a part of this analysis. pH was determined by
a pH meter.
Chemical dosages, originally projected to be 100% of theoretical, were
determined by stoichiometric methods based on this equation:
CaCl2 + MgCl2 + Ca(OH)2
- S»-4NaCl + 2CaC03 + Mg(OH)2 (6)
During optimization it was found that satisfactory results could be
obtained by dosages of soda ash at 83-89% of theoretical and of lime
at 63-72% of theoretical.
Lime and soda ash were fed in the dry state. The additions were made
with a pneumatic conveyer and a vane type feeder. The chemicals were
added gradually to the brine in (the reaction tank to prevent caking.
The contents were agitated constantly by means of a propeller type
stirrer. During optimization, it was found that recirculation was also
required.
The reaction between the chemicals was very rapid but solution of lime
and soda ash was slow. This slow solution rate required slow feed of
chemicals and rapid agitation. As the reaction proceeded, the contents
of the reactor became noticeably thicker and much whiter due to pre-
cipitates that formed. The suspension closely resembled whitewash in
appearance and in chemical composition.
After one hour of stirring, the reactor and its contents were allowed
17
-------
to remain static overnight. Good settling occurred with the super-
natant brine clear enough (20 Jackson Turbidity Units—20 JTU) to draw
off and neutralize. Neutralization was needed because the product
brine from the reactor had a pH of about 9. Brine for softener
regeneration must be below pH 8.3. The neutralization was accomplished
by adding a measured quantity of hydrochloric acid (HCl) to the
reclaimed brine during decantation.
The decanted brine was slightly below the desired strength of 60 S.
Reconstitution was easily accomplished by adding a small quantity of
100°S brine which was available from the brine saturator of the regener-
ation plant. Use of data from the Brine Table of Appendix F permitted
calculation of the adjustment. This is explained in Appendix D,
Section VI.
The sludge was allowed to accumulate for three days. This produced a
denser more grainy particle. It was pumped at three day intervals
into a tank truck and removed to a dump pond provided by the City of
Riverside.
PROCESS OPTIMIZATION
There were two basic objectives for optimization. First, determine
the most effective use of chemicals to provide brine of acceptable
purity. Second, determine methods for producing a dense sludge which
would readily separate.
It has been accepted by the industry that chloride brines, which con-
tain a minimum of 95% sodium (based on total cations) will be suitable
for regeneration purposes.
Further, experience has shown that the pH must be below 8.3. This
assures the absence of carbonate which would precipitate calcium and
foul the exchange material. For this study, the range of 6.5-8.0 was
arbitrarily set.
Material balances dictate that water should not be added during the
reclamation process. Therefore, lime and soda ash were handled and
fed as a dry powder.
In order to produce a brine of acceptable purity which would require
minimal amounts of acid for pH adjustment, it was important that the
precipitate separate readily from the supernatant brine. Efficient
settling also eliminated the need for filtration.
Appendix A provides a record of the 48 test runs made during optimiza-
tion. Variations were made in chemical dosage, agitation and sludge
retention. The chemical and physical characteristics of the brine and
sludge were entered for each run.
18
-------
The remarks on each test data sheet show the variations of conditions
for the runs and often provide qualitative comment on the success or
failure of the procedure and the effect of change.
The first variations were with chemical dosages with the effort
directed toward determining minimum dosages to produce maximum, at
least acceptable, brine purity.
The time and nature of agitation was studied concurrently with varying
dosages. It was observed during the first five or six test runs that
sludge recirculation, during chemical addition, was necessary to
prevent unreacted chemicals from caking and accumulating in the sludge
drain pipe at the bottom of the reactor vessel. Piping was modified to
recirculate the reactor contents along with the sludge, through the
sludge discharge pump, back to the top of the reactor. Unreacted
chemicals and sludge caking were thereby avoided.
The reactor was designed for brine decantation at several points on
the side sheet. These were 1" outlets individually valved into a 4"
line. This allowed decantation of the treated brine at several levels.
This flexibility was found unnecessary. Also, the small outlets
resulted in slow decantation. To reduce this time, a single 3"
decanting outlet was installed at the bottom of the side sheet. This
allowed ample room above the settled sludge. Decanting time was 20
minutes with the 3" outlet as compared to 90 minutes with the multiple
openings.
The original plan was to decant the brine, and drain the sludge after
each cycle. However, it was found that sludge accumulation was
desirable. Test Runs 15 and 16 were the first effort to accumulate
sludge. The total volume of sludge discharged for both runs was 900
gallons. All previous runs had discharged 700-900 gallons of sludge
each.
Accumulation for three cycles and for four cycles was also tried.
Three cycles accumulation was chosen as optimum because the 900
gallons which accumulated was easily hauled and there was ample room
in the conical bottom of the reactor tank for the sludge. More cycles
tended to overfill the cone, while fewer resulted in excess hauling.
The reduced sludge volume with three cycle accumulation was partly due
to loss of water from the highly hydrated precipitates and partly due
to nucleation. It is postulated that the already precipitated
materials provided sites for new precipitation, resulting in larger
sludge particles.
The discharged sludge was transferred to a tank truck for trans-
portation to the approved dumping site. Discharge of sludge from the
truck at the site was slow and incomplete. Therefore, the tank truck
was modified to allow faster discharge. The discharge gate valve was
19
-------
changed from 4" to 8", while the bottom holes of the internal baffles
were enlarged. These changes were made after optimization and during
the demonstration portion of the project.
The program for determining optimum chemical dosage was executed in
two stages: empirical plant tests, and laboratory bench tests. In
the plant, the first nine runs applied dosages of soda ash in varying
proportions ranging from 100% to 75% of theoretical. The dosage of
lime remained constant at 150 pounds (83-99% of theoretical). Higher
soda ash dosages tended to produce higher brine purities. However,
since 95% brine purity was acceptable, 83-89% of theoretical was
empirically established. Soda ash dosages of less than 85% left too
much hardness in the brine: dosages greater than 89% were unnecessary,
Use of soda ash alone was tried during Runs 10-14. Even with 100% of
the theoretical application of soda ash, the brine purity was only
94%. This comment was made on the data sheets, "The sludge was
observed to be bulky and somewhat gummy in texture". With these
results in mind, use of soda ash alone was abandoned until later.
Because of the convenience of using soda ash only, test Runs 32-36
utilized no lime. Low purities again resulted: the sludge was bulky
and gummy: larger than normal acid amounts were required for pH
control. Once again, it was shown that hydrated lime was desirable.
Theoretically, soda ash alone should reduce the magnesium concentra-
tion to acceptable (for this process) levels, but it did not seem
practical for this project. Analyses of the reclaimed brine showed
nearly zero calcium content and high, slightly reduced, magnesium
content, with a high pH. The high pH being due to soluble magnesium
carbonate (MgCCL). The OH ion of the lime is required to precipitate
the magnesium, and reduce the pH according to the following reaction.
MgC03 + Ca(OH)2 ^•Mg(OH)* + CaCOg (?)
Figures 10, 11 and 12 show relationships of pH and chemical use to
acid quantities needed to adjust the reclaimed brine to pH 8.0 or
lower. The importance of low pH reclaimed brine is graphically
illustrated in Figure 10. All test runs were applied to develop this
curve. Obviously, lower pH before adjustment requires less acid for
pH adjustment.
Figure 11 shows the acid requirement when soda ash alone was used.
Notice again that the acid is measured in gallons. None of the
adjusted brines had a pH below 10.1 so that all required 2-3 gallons
of 30% hydrochloric acid.
Figure 12 shows acid requirement when soda ash and lime are added in
the amounts chosen as optimum.
20
-------
10.0
9.0
UNADJUSTEE
BRINE
pH
8.0
0 12345
Gallons 30% HCl/3,000 gallons brine
Figure 10, Amount of Hydrochloric Acid to Adjust Brine pH to
6.5-8.0. Various dosages of lime and soda ash used for treatment,
21
-------
10.5
10.3
UNADJUSTED
BRINE
pH
10.1
9.9
9.7
9.5
0
1 2 3 4
Gallons 30% HCl/3,000 gallons brine
Figure 11. Amount of Hydrochloric Acid to Adjust Brine pH to
6.5-8.0. Soda ash only used for treatment.
22
-------
10.0
9.0
UNADJUSTED
BRINE
pH
8.0
7.0
200 400 600
ml HCl/3,000 gallons brine
800
Figure 12. Amount of Hydrochloric Acid to Adjust Brine pH to
6.5-8.0. Optimum dosages of lime and soda ash used for treatment.
23
-------
The unadjusted pH is quite low and the acid requirement is also low.
Considering acid requirements, the need of soda ash and lime and the
importance of proper dosage is illustrated in the following tabulation:
Table 1. ACID REQUIREMENT BASED ON CHEMICAL TYPES USED.
Chemicals used
Soda ash only
Soda ash and lime
Optimum dosage,
soda ash and
lime
Average acid requirement,
per 1,000 gal. brine
0.71 gal.
0.18 gal.
0.04 gal.
Complete tabulation summary of unadjusted brine pH and acid usage is to
be found in Appendix B,
Laboratory bench tests were run to verify empirically established
"optimum" dosages. Since the reactions are equilibria, any of the
reactions can be reversed with a change in conditions. The equilibria
move in a given direction because of relative solubilities. These
solubilities are recorded in Table 2.
Table 2. SOLUBILITY OF COMPOUNDS1-
(in grams/100 grams of water at 20 degrees C.)
CaC03
Ca(OH)2
Mg(C03)
Mg(OH)^
NaCl
Na2C03
Mgci2
CaCl
0.0012
0.165
0.0106
0.0009
36.0
21.5
54.5
59.5
24
-------
The table shows that, in this system, all chlorides are soluble. Also,
because precipitation is preferential to less soluble salts, if hydrate
alkalinity (OH) is present, Mg(OH)2 will precipitate rather than
Ca(OH)2. Also, if carbonate alkalinity (COg) is present, CaC03 will
precipitate rather than Mg(CO)3. Therefore, an inadequate dosage of
soda ash (supplying CO,,) will precipitate only calcium as CaCO ; and,
an inadequate dosage of lime — Ca(OH)o will precipitate only magnesium
as Mg(OH)2. ^
Because magnesium carbonate is sparingly soluble, dosage with sufficient
soda would also precipitate MgCO^, and it would be possible to meet the
95% sodium requirement.
The chemical reactions are illustrated in equations (&) and (9), where
the chloride ions associated with the cations are not shown.
Mg** + Ca(OH) - S»~Mq(OH)2 + Ca*4" (8)
24.3 74.1 z (Reaction weights)
Nig4"1" + Na2C03 - >- MgC03 + 2Na+ (9)
24.3 106.0 "(Reaction weights)
These equations .show that 24.3 pounds of magnesium require either 74.1
pounds of Ca(OH) or 106.0 pounds of Na2C03 for reaction. The 74.1
pounds of CA(OH)^, at $0.0235 per pound, costs $1.74. The 106.0 pounds
of Na2C03, at $0.0372 per pound costs $3.94. Obviously, it is cheaper
to use Ca(OHL to precipitate the magnesium.
The sequence of adding chemicals is of interest. In the original
planned procedure it was arbitrarily decided to add the soda ash first.
This sequence remained unchanged in this study.
For this study and considering the quantities of chemicals used, the
following equation can describe the reaction with soda ash only.
MgCl2 + CaCl2 + Na2C03 --*» CaCOg + MgCl2 + 2NaCl (10)
Since the established soda ash do'sage was about 85% of theoretical for
reaction with the calcium hardness, it is likely that very little, if
any, magnesium is precipitated as the carbonate in this stage.
After the soda ash was added, separate feed of lime was made. The
reaction of lime is as follows:
+ Ca(OH) - -*- Mq(OH)2 + CaCl2 (ll)
The formula NaCl is not shown in the reaction because it remains
soluble throughout. These reactions are considered equilibria. The
degree of movement in a given direction can be checked by separating
the reactants and analyzing the results. This was done in the
25
-------
laboratory bench tests. The procedure used for these tests is in
Appendix C, "Riverside Procedure - Optimum Dosage Determination".
The procedure was to treat brine for reclamation with dosages of soda
ash equal to 50, 75, 85, 100 and 110 percent of the stoichiometric
requirement of soda ash. The reacting solutions were analyzed at 15
minute intervals for the concentration of calcium, magnesium, and the
pH value. These results appear in Table 17 in Appendix C, and were
plotted so that the optimum dosages and mixing times could be selected
considering maximum calcium removal.
Figure 13, "Treated Brine Magnesium Hardness, Etc." shows the remaining
magnesium hardness as a function of the soda ash dosages and reaction
time. This graph indicates that with soda ash dosages which are less
than the stoichiometric amount, the effect on the magnesium hardness is
small. The graph shows that with 100 or 110$ dosages, the reaction
time should be about 60 minutes with little difference between the two
dosages.
Figure 14, "Treated Brine Calcium Hardness, Etc." shows the remaining
calcium hardness as a function of soda ash dosages and reaction time.
The graph shows that the 85$ dosage will reduce the calcium hardness
with 60 minutes of contact time. Increasing the dosage to 100 or
decreases the concentration at a slightly faster rate.
Figure 15, "Treated Brine pH, Etc." plots the treated brine pH as a
function of soda ash dosages and reaction time. The graph illustrates
the higher pH values caused by higher dosages of soda ash.
Reviewing Figures 13, 14 and 15 illustrates that the optimum dosage of
soda ash should be about 85$ with a reaction time of about 60 minutes.
A similar procedure was used with four new separate samples of un-
treated brine being treated only with hydrated lime. Similar data was
obtained with similar resulting graphs. The data is in Table 18 in
Appendix C, and is plotted in the attached Figures 16 and 17. Figure
16 shows the remaining magnesium hardness in the treated brine as a
function of the hydrated lime addition and reaction time. The figure
shows the increasing reduction of the magnesium hardness concentration
with increasing dosage and reaction time. Complete reduction of the
magnesium requires a dosage of 100 or 110$ with a reaction time of 60
minutes. However, such complete reduction is unnecessary to meet
our "95$ purity" specification for the reclaimed brine.
The calcium hardness data has not been plotted into graphs because the
addition of only lime does not materially affect the calcium hardness.
A slight increase results because of the solubility of calcium
hydroxide.
Figure 17 plots the treated brine pH as a function of lime dosage and
26
-------
500
400
MAGNESIUM
HARDNESS
gpg
300
200
100
0
0 30
TIME, minutes
Figure 13. Treated Brine Magnesium Hardness, as Functions
of Soda Ash Dosage and Reaction Time.
27
-------
1800
1500
1200
CALCIUM
HARDNESS
gpg
900
600
300
0
Figure 14.
30
TIME, minutes
Treated Brine Calcium Hardness, as Functions
of Soda Ash Dosage and Reaction Time.
28
-------
10.0
6.5
30 60
TIME , minutes
Figure 15. Treated Brine pH, as Functions of Soda Ash
Dosage and Reaction Time.
29
-------
500
400
MAGNESIUM
HARDNESS,
gpg
300
200
100
0
0 30 60
TIME, minutes.
Figure 16. Treated Brine Magnesium Hardness, as Functions
of Hydrated Lime Dosage and Reaction Time.
30
-------
9.5
9.0
8.5
TREATED
BRINE,
pH
8.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
30
TIME, minutes
60
Figure 17
Treated Brine pH, as Functions of Hydrated
Lime Dosage and Reaction Time.
31
-------
reaction time. The graphs clearly show the increased pH values due to
the solubility of calcium hydroxide.
The laboratory data were reviewed with the determination that the
optimum dosages should be less than stoichiometric: 85$ for soda ash
and 68% for hydrated lime. With these dosages, then, a third series
of laboratory tests were made with waste brine to be reclaimed. The
waste brine was treated with soda ash (85% of stoichiometric), stirred
45 minutes, then treated with hydrated lime (68% stoichiometric) and
stirred an additional 45 minutes. The reactants were sampled
periodically and analyzed for calcium, magnesium and pH. Triplicate
tests were performed: the values were averaged for preparation of
Table 19 in Appendix C. The tabular data was then used to prepare the
graphs of Figures 18, 19 and 20.
Figure 18 shows the remaining calcium hardness as a function of time.
The figure shows that the soda ash addition was sufficient to reduce
the calcium hardness to zero but that the subsequent hydrated lime
addition increased the calcium hardness.
Figure 19 plots the remaining magnesium hardness and clearly shows
that the magnesium hardness was unaffected by the soda ash addition
and that the hydrated lime significantly reduced the magnesium.
Figure 20 shows the treated brine pH value. It clearly indicates that
the pH increases with soda ash addition, but that subsequent addition
of hydrated lime reduces the pH. A review of this data indicates that
the optimum dosages will yield a reclaimed brine of suitable quality
except that the pH of about 9 must be reduced with subsequent addition
of acid.
With the established dosages and with the addition of soda ash first
and lime second, minimal amounts of acid were required for pH adjust-
ment of the effluent. This adjustment was made by adding a
predetermined amount (usually 100-150 ml) of hydrochloric acid
(20° Be') as the decantation was occurring. This provided sufficient
agitation for mixing.
The brine as originally drawn off had a turbidity of 20 JTU, due to
unsettled small particles of precipitate. The acid added for pH
adjustment dissolved the precipitate to produce a product brine of
about 1.0 JTU. The slight increase in hardness that resulted was not
sufficient to cause failure to meet specifications.
The established procedure is outlined in detail in Appendix D, which
includes plant operation, lab testing, etc. This procedure was used
throughout the subsequent demonstration runs.
32
-------
2000
co
CO
1500
CALCIUM
HARDNESS,
gpg
1000
500
SODA ASH ADDITION
HYDRATED LIME ADDIT
ON
0
TIME, minutes
Figure 18. Effect of Chemical Addition on Remaining Calcium Hardness. Soda ash 85%,
hydrated lime 68% of stoichiometric.
-------
CO
600
„
450
MAGNESIUM.
HARDNESS,
9P9
300
150
0
0
•if
SODA ASH ADDED
HYDRATED LIME ADDED
30
60
90
TIME , minutes
Figure 19. Effect of Chemical Addition on Remaining Magnesium Hardness. Soda ash
85%, hydrated lime 6Q% of stoichiometric.
-------
CA)
cn
9.0
7.5
ADJUSTED
pH
6.75
6.0
SODA ASH ADDITION J_ HYDRATED LIME ADDITION
I""f
T
0 30 60
TIME, Minutes
Figure 20. Effect of Chemical Addition on Adjusted pH.
lime 68% of stoichiometric.
90
Soda ash 85%, hydrated
-------
PROCESS DEMONSTRATION
Without basic change, the optimum procedure (Appendix D) was used for
174 demonstration runs. The process was actually carried out over a
period of ten months. The wastes of the regeneration plant were
processed routinely with the optimum procedure. Brine was processed,
a product was returned for use, and salts were prevented from entering
the environment.
During the last month of the project, the equipment was in use under
the control of non-professional personnel of the regeneration plant.
There were no reports of difficulty with their operation. It would
seem that the process lends itself to operation by non-technical
personnel.
Appendix G is a record of the operation throughout the demonstration.
Complete data for each run is recorded: data sheets for each run are
included in Appendix G. These runs provide data which show the
following:
1. The process can be sustained productively.
2. The process can be carried out routinely by non-technical
personnel.
3. The measurements and calculations were of sufficient
accuracy to produce material balances.
4. The process could materially reduce salts discharged,
thus reducing potential pollution.
5. The process was not economically favorable at this
location. Possibly, cost values at other locations would
be more favorable.
It had been empirically determined during Process Optimization (and
verified with laboratory bench tests) that the optimum range of
chemical dosages was 83-89% of theoretical for soda ash, and 63-72%
for hydrated lime.
The soda ash dosage was determined as follows. Soda ash was used to
reduce the calcium concentration according to the following typical
reaction:
CaCl2 + Na2C03 ^- CaCO_3 + 2NaCl (12)
From the above it is seen that each equivalent of calcium hardness
requires one equivalent of soda ash. Our analyses express the calcium
hardness in terms of grains per gallon (gpg), as CaCO . In terms of
CaCOg, then, each gpg of calcium requires one gpg of soda ash.
36
-------
Conversion from "as CaCOg" to "as substance" requires multiplication by
the ratio of the equivalent weights, as follows:
Ca, as CaCO x ec[_wt_Na0C00 = Ca, as Na0CO»
•3 , /•> £- •o 2. -J
eq wt CacO
,
eq wt
eg wt Na2CO = 53 _ = 1.057
eq wt CaCCU 50.1
o
The soda ash was needed to react with the calcium chloride produced in
the hydrated lime reaction (equation 11 ) as well as with the calcium
originally present. Therefore, the total hardness (rather than only
calcium) of the untreated brine was used in this calculation. The
soda ash dosage in pounds per hundred gallons then is:
Soda ash dosage = gpg total hardness x 1.057 x 1 lb/7000 gr x 100
Soda ash dosage = gpg total hardness x 0.0151
Since much of the data is repetitive, three typical runs (76A, 77A and
78A) were chosen to provide data for discussion. Three runs cover a
complete cycle: three waste brine collections, three chemical dosages,
three reclaimed brine decantations, and one sludge withdrawal.
Pertinent data from these three runs is included here as Table 4,
"TEST DATA SUMMARY".
Soda ash dosage calculations, using the factor 0.0151 developed imme-
diately above, are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. CALCULATION OF SODA ASH DOSAGE.
Test run 76A 77A 78A
Total hardness, gpg 2220 2330 2300
Factor 0.0151 0.0151 0.0151
Volume, 100 gal. 29 27 27
Dosage, Ib soda ash:
Theoretical 970 950 940
Added 800 800 800
% of Theoretical 83 84 85
37
-------
Table 4 . TEST DATA SUMMARY
Run
76A
77A
78A
Total or
(Average)
Untreated Brine:
Volume, gal. 2900 2700 2700 8300
Strength, °S 56 57 56 (56)
Solubles, Ib 3960 3760 3700 11,420
Magnesium, CaCOg, gpg 480 555 530 (522)
Calcium, CaC03, gpg 1740 1775 1770 (1762)
Chemicals Added:
Hydrated Lime:
Ib 100 100 100 300
% theoretical 68 64 66 (66)
Soda Ash:
Ib 800 800 800 2400
% theoretical 83 84 85 (84)
Reclaimed Brine:
Volume, gal. 2700 2700 2500 7900
Strength, °S 55 56 55 (55)
Solubles, Ib 3620 3700 3340 10,660
Total Hardness, gpg 405 465 405 (425)
Purity, % 95 95 95 (95)
Waste:
Volume, gal. —— 900
Insoluble, Ib:
leach calc 2810
analysis calc 2985
Solubles, Ib:
leach calc 970
analysis calc 795
Waste Reduction, %i
Volume 89
Solubles, Ib:
leach calc 92
analysis calc 93
38
-------
The hydrated lime dosage was determined as follows: lime was used to
reduce the magnesium concentration according to the following typical
reaction:
MgCl2 + Ca(OH)2 >. Mg(OH)9 + CaCl2 (13)
Again, in terms of CaCO^, each gpg of magnesium hardness requires one
gpg of lime. Also, conversion from "as CaC03" to "as substance"
requires multiplication by the ratio of the equivalent weights; thusly,
Mg, as CaC03 x eg wt Ca(OH)2 = Mg, as Ca(OH)2
eq wt CaCOo
eg wt Ca(OH)2 = 37.1 = 0.74
eq wt CaC03 50.1
For each gpg of magnesium, the lime dosage in pounds per hundred
gallons is calculated thusly:
Lime dosage = gpg magnesium x 0.74 x 1 lb/7000 gr x 100
Lime dosage = gpg magnesium x 0.0105
Lime dosage calculations, using the factor 0.0105 just developed, are
shown in Table 5.
Table 5. CALCULATION OF HYDRATED LIME DOSAGE.
Test run
Magnesium hardness, gpg
Factor
Volume, 100 gal.
Dosage, Ib hydrated lime:
Theoretical
Added
% of Theoretical
76A
480
0.0105
29
146
100
68
77A
555
0.0105
27
157
100
64
78A
530
0.0105
27
150
100
66
These dosages, with soda ash applied first, consistently resulted in
the production of brine containing 95$ sodium chloride.
39
-------
Bench tests applied to waste brine using soda ash in the 83-89% range,
and lime in the 63-72% range produced the following results:
Table 6. BENCH TEST RESULTS.
Total
Sample hardness Calcium Magnesium
Waste brine, gpg 2450 1925 525
Treated brine, gpg 380 175 205
Remaining, % 15.5 9.1 39
Since the dosage of soda ash is calculated on the total hardness, and
since 83-89% of theoretical was applied, then 85% reduction of total
hardness seems within the range of expectation, and is a sufficient
reduction to produce a brine which is quite useful for regeneration of
softeners.
MATERIAL BALANCES
The difficulty in achieving material balances in this study is indi-
cated at other points in this report. Specific reference is made to
the later section on Economic Evaluation where credit was given for the
return of $54 worth of water, when $49 entered the system. Obviously,
dilution waters may contribute to this imbalance.
Scale up from laboratory analyses to applied dosages presents another
source of error. Determinations made, even with good accuracy, do have
inherent errors and these errors become appreciable when the results
are calculated from a 100 ml sample and extrapolated to a 3,000 gallon
batch.
Representative samples are difficult to collect where non-homogeneous
materials, such as sludge, must be examined. The material balances
were calculated for typical runs rather than for the larger time
interval represented in the later Economic Study. Balances will cover
waste brine and chemicals into the reclamation plant vs products out.
Two methods were available to determine the weight of solubles in the
sludge. One used the loss in weight by leaching the solubles from the
dry solids. The range of pounds per reaction batch (from three runs)
ranged from 390-1100 pounds per batch. Only about 13% of the 174 runs
were under 700 pounds of solubles in the sludge.
The other system of solubles determination was based on the analysis
40
-------
Table 7. SALT BALANCE BASED ON SALOMETER READINGS
Input to Reclaim Plant
Brine, gal 8,300
Strength, °S 56.3
Solubles, Ib NaCl 11,420
Output from Reclaim Plant
Brine, gal 7,900
Strength, °S 55.3
Solubles, Ib NaCl 10,660
Sludge Solubles, Table 4 970
Solubles, Ib NaCl 11,630
Average, Ib 11,525
Deviation, Ib 105
Deviation, % 0.9
41
-------
Table 8. WATER BALANCE
Input to Reclaim Plant
Brine:
Volume, gal. 8,300
Strength, °S 56.3
Water, gal./gal. brine 0.9457
Water, gal. 7,850
Total Water In, gal. 7^850
Output from Reclaim Plant
Brine:
Volume, gal. 7,900
Strength, °S 55.3
Water, gal/gal, brine 0.9467
Water, gal.
Sludge:
Volume, gal. 900
Density, Ib/gal. 10.8
Total Solids, Ib/gal. 4.2
Water, Ib/gal. 6.6
Water, Ib 5,940
Water, gal. (8.33 Ib/gal.) 713
Total Water Out, gal. 8,193
Average, gal. 8,022
Deviation, gal. 171
Deviation, % 2.2
42
-------
of the supernatant brine. This calculation had a range of 215-885
pounds per batch of sludge, with 16 runs containing less than 550
pounds of solubles. Either calculation is acceptable.
Test Runs No. 76A, 77A and 78A were chosen as being in the range where
data from the majority of the runs fell. Table 4, "TEST DATA SUMMARY",
is a representation of the daily test run data, with the waste
determinations taken from the sludge discharge. Averages and totals
were calculated and are entered in the last column of the table.
A material balance can be based on soluble salts, by simply using the
brine table (Appendix F) and assuming all solubles are sodium chloride.
The balance is shown in Table 7, "SALT BALANCE BASED ON SALOMETER
READINGS". The deviation is 0.9%, which is excellent.
Water balance is also of interest. Table 8, "WATER BALANCE",
illustrates the water balance. The deviation for materials balance
for water is 2.2% which is reasonable and shows "greater output than
input" which is indicated and explained elsewhere.
Following is a balance for all solids, equating them equivalent to
CaCO . Any equivalent could be used; however, calcium carbonate is
chosen for its convenience in calculating water analysis, etc. Factors
are provided in the literature^ for conversion of common mineral
constituents to CaCO equivalents. The following tabulation shows the
factors needed for the material balance.
Table 9. CONVERSION FACTORS
To change:
NaCl to CaC03 multiply by 0.856
Na2C03 to CaC03 multiply by 0.944
Ca(OH) to CaC03 multiply by 1.35
The soda ash and lime dosages were considered separately in the
"input". (Table 10) Since the preponderance of the sludge is calcium
carbonate, and since there is no convenient way to separate the
magnesium hydroxide present, the weight of the sludge was considered
to be all calcium carbonate. Table 10, "SALT AND CHEMICAL BALANCE",
shows the chemical balance. The input is 12,446 pounds compared with
the output of 12,940 pounds, both as calcium carbonate. A reasonable
balance is indicated.
It should be noted from Table 10, "SALT AND CHEMICAL BALANCE", that
43
-------
Table 10. SALT AND CHEMICAL BALANCE.
(Basis as CaC03)
Input .
Brine:
Volume, gal. '8,300
Solubles:
NaCl (Table 7 ), lb 11,420
CaCCu (11420 x 0.856), lb 9,775
Magnesium, CaCCU:
gpg 522
lb/1000 gal. (522/7) 74.5
Ib/batch (74.5 x 8.3) 618
Calcium, CaCO :
gpg * 1,762
lb/1000 gal. (1762/7) 251
Ib/batch (251 x 8.3) 2,083
Total Hardness, CaCO,., lb 2,701
Total NaCl as CaCOg, lb 7,074 7,074
Chemicals Added:
Soda Ash:
lb as is 2,400
lb as CaC03 (2400 x 0.944) 2,266
Hydrated Lime:
lb as is 300
lb as CaCCL (300 x 1.35) 405
Total Input, CaCOg, lb 12,446
Output
Brine:
Volume, gal. 7,900
Solubles:
NaCl (Table 7 ), lb 10,660
CaC03 (10660 x 0.856), lb 9,125
Total Hardness CaCO :
gpg 425
lb/1000 gal (425/7) 61
Ib/batch (61 x 7.9) 482 482
NaCl as CaCOg, lb 8,643 8,643
Sludge:
Volume, gal. 900
Solubles:
NaCl, lb 970
as CaC03 (970 x 0.856), lb 830
Insolubles from Analysis CaC03, lb 2,985
Total Output, CaC03, lb 12,940
Average, lb 12,693
Deviation, lb 247
Deviation, % 1.9
44
-------
about 11,420 pounds of salts (as NaCl) were received into the process
and that 10,660 pounds of NaCl (as NaCl) were returned to use, plus 970
pounds in the sludge. Therefore, a significant return of salt was
realized. It is of much greater importance, however, that the 11,420
pounds of salts did not reenter the environment as potential pollution.
The materials balance for the insolubles produced is presented in
Table 11, "SLUDGE BALANCE". The input considers only the chemicals
(soda ash and lime) which were added to cause precipitation. Their
addition has been calculated to a total input of 2671 pounds as CaCO-3.
The output is in the insolubles of the sludge. Chemical analysis of
the sludge indicated that the 900 gallons of sludge contained 2985
pounds of solids. Although the insolubles are a mixture of calcium
carbonate and magnesium hydroxide, the amount of the latter precipitate
is small and will not appreciably affect the balance. The deviation
is shown as 5.5%, which is reasonable.
Table 11. SLUDGE BALANCE
Input:
Soda ash, Ib:
as is 2400
as CaCO 2266
\5
Hydrated lime, Ib:
as is 300
as CaC03 405
Total input 2671
Output:
i
Sludge:
volume, gal. 900
insolubles, Ib 2985
Total output 2985
Average, Ib 2828
Deviation, Ib 157
Deviation, % 5.5
45
-------
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Indirect costs are not considered in this evaluation; only direct costs.
During the process demonstration, a .convenient accounting period was
chosen to compare the cost of various methods of waste brine handling.
During this period, 5,612 portable exchange softeners were regenerated.
This required 92,500 pounds of salt contained in about 59,000 gallons
of water, resulting in about 62,700 gallons of brine of 60°S strength.
As a base for cost comparison, the usual practice of simple discharge
to the sewer was considered.
At the present site, salt was delivered at $19.00 per ton ($0.0095/lb)
and water at $6.25 per 1,000 cubic feet, which is equal to $0.836 per
1,000 gallons. Since no special equipment was required beyond that
used in all regeneration processes considered, and since no special
labor was required for open discharge, the basic costs are for salt
and water. Therefore, rounding off to the nearest dollar, the costs
weres
92,500 Ibs of salt x $0.0095/lb = $879 salt
59.000 gallons x $0.836 = $ 49 water
1,000
$928 total
Thus the cost — $928 — is the basic cost for regenerating 5,612
portable exchange softeners. There is no attempt to protect the
environment and no effort to be efficient in salt use beyond reasonable
business practice.
As a step in reducing this cost, a portion of the rinse water which
contained some salt, but very little hardness, was diverted to the
salt dissolver to be reconstituted and then reused for regeneration.
During the accounting period, this was approximately 21,000 gallons
with an average salometer of 30°. The salt recovered was 7.4 tons;
water 20,600 gallons.
Basic cost for salt and water $ 928
Less salt saved (7.4 x $19.00) -141
Less water saved (20.6 x $0.836) -17
Net cost with brine recovery $ 770
City regulations at Riverside allow the discharge of 30% of the pur-
chased salt to the sewer. This is permitted by the regulation in the
form of a waiver for central softener regeneration plants. The waiver
is subject to withdrawal.
46
-------
For a time, the Riverside regeneration plant operated by hauling a
portion of the brine which contained about 70% of the salt to an
acceptable dumpsite. The remainder was recovered as above, while
some was discharged as very dilute solutions to the city sewer system.
The volume of brine hauled was 43,900 gallons.
During the accounting period, the costs for hauling were as follows:
Dumping fee $ 260
Gasoline 35
Labor 210
Truck expense (depreciation, license, etc) 91
Total hauling cost $ 596
Basic costs for salt and water 928
Total cost with hauling brine waste $ 1524
Since brine was recovered as before, the net cost of hauling brine is:
Total cost hauling brine waste $1524
Less salt and water saved -158
Net cost hauling brine $1366
The present study is concerned with the lime-soda softening process for
the brine waste reclamation. The following analysis will show the
costs using this system.
Table 12 shows the depreciation costs for the accounting period.
Table 12. DEPRECIATION COSTS
Building - contracted price $19,085.00
Depreciation for accounting period (20 yrs) $ 79.54
Equipment - purchase price $14,530.00
Depreciation for accounting period (5 yrs) 242.17
Total depreciation $ 321.71
Rounded off to $ 322.00
47
-------
It was difficult to properly assign capital costs fairly in this study.
A special building addition was required and the equipment was designed
for flexibility rather than durability and economy.
In the Southern California climate, most of the equipment could be
outdoors with minimal protection. The full costs were used here with
the understanding that with present knowledge, capital investment
could be smaller for plants at other locations.
With recovery plus reclamation of brine, the cost of chemicals used
during the accounting period totaled $563.00. These were:
Soda ash 14,550 Ibs @ 0.035 = $ 510
Lime - 1600 Ibs @ 0.0325 = 52
Hydrochloric acid - 17.5 Ibs @ 0.054 = 1
Total chemicals $ 563
During the accounting period, 30.9 tons of salt in the form of
reclaimed brine was returned to the system. The value of this salt
was:
30.9 tons x $19.00 = $ 587 salt value
This salt was contained in 43,700 gallons of water. The value of this
water was:
43.700 gal, x $0.836 = $ 37 water value
1000
The reclamation system costs are summarized in Table 13.
48
-------
Table 13. RECLAMATION SYSTEM COSTS
(Direct costs only.)
Salt
Water
Dumping fee
Gasoline
Hauling labor
Operating labor
Truck expense
Utilities
Chemicals
Depreciation
Total cost
Less water recovered
Less water reclaimed
Water saving
Cost less water saving
Less salt recovered
Less salt reclaimed
Salt savings
$ 879
49
30
8
48
489
91
14
563
322
17
37
$ 54
141
587
$ 728
$ 2,493
-54
$ 2,439
-728
Net cost with recovery
and reclamation $ 1,711
Table 14, "COST COMPARISON STUDY" is a summary of the cost for the four
waste brine handling processes.
It appears that brine reclamation is unfavorable from an economic
standpoint at this location. However, different values for cost
49
-------
Table 14. COST COMPARISON
(Direct costs only.)
Variable
Chemicals:
Salt, basic
Water, basic
Lime & Soda ash
Less salt returned
Less water returned
Total Chemical Cost
Open
Discharge
$ 879
49
$ 928
Open
Discharge
& Recovery
$ 879
49
-141
- 17
$ 770
Hauling
and
Recovery
$ 879
49
-141
- 17
$ 770
Reclaim
and
Recovery
$ 879
49
563
728
- 54
$ 709
Building, equip, depr.
Operating Costs:
Dumping fee
Gasoline
Labor:
Hauling
Plant
Truck depr, ins,etc
Utilities
Total Costs
Cost per softener
regenerated, $
$ 928
.165
$ 770
.137
322
30
8
48
489
91
14
.243
$1,711
.305
factors at other locations may reverse this indication. Additionally,
the environmental impact study will show that the process has environ-
mental protective values.
One item stands out in the table. A credit for $54 water returned is
applied, but only $49 worth of water is charged. Both values are
determined by volume measurement of brines. Salt table factors are
applied and the amount of water present is calculated. The values are
recorded and utilized in the study. The fact that more water is
returned than was used is due to the return of dilution waters as well
as errors introduced by analysis.
The study reported here has shown that the reclamation process is
technically successful. Discharges were reduced by about 90%. Effects
on the environment were minimized. However, the expense is signifi-
cantly greater than other disposal methods for this location. Some of
the costs could be reduced by continued study and the application of
improved management techniques.
50
-------
Chemical costs are probably irreducible, but depreciation and operating
labor can be reduced. Such reduction should be established by pro-
cedures outlined in the Section, "RECOMMENDATIONS".
The present plant is overdesigned in some respects, and the building
could be smaller. Reduction of capital expenditures would reduce
depreciation costs, which is one of the large cost items.
Changes in the plant design can be made which can make the operating
labor less expensive. At the same time, plants can be designed to be
less expensive.
At other locations where dumping fees are higher, or where hauling
distances are greater, the differences between hauling and reclamation
may be reduced. With these reductions, it is probable that cost of
reclamation can be brought equal to hauling and recovery costs.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Probably the most important aspect of the present study is the change
in environmental effect by the use of the process. Environmental
effects might (for this discussion) be:
1. Alteration of types and quantities of resources used.
2. Alteration of types and quantities of wastes discharged.
3. Alteration of energy uses.
Since this process is not a great user of energy (utilities and sludge
transport), the subject of direct energy usage can be disposed of
quickly. Direct energy use is minimal, being in the order of $25-30
per month. However, the energy used to manufacture lime and soda ash
is of a much higher order than the energy used to manufacture
comparable quantities of sodium chloride. Comparison of energy usage
is beyond the scope of this report but comparisons should be made
during the planning of all long-grange ecological projects.
From the standpoint of resources used, the process is quite encour-
aging. Table 15, "COMPARISON OF MATERIALS USED" compares the materials
used during a convenient accounting period for regenerations made with
four methods of waste discharge. The figures are derived from
measured volumes of brine used and by calculations from brine tables.
The pounds of chemicals are actual purchased amounts.
Open discharge simply means all salt purchased was discharged after
use as a softener regenerant. The 92,500 pounds is that amount
required to regenerate 5,612 portable exchange softeners. This is the
base amount. Other methods used the same 92,500 pounds of salt for
51
-------
regeneration, but the net usage is less because of salt recovered or
reclaimed.
Table 15. COMPARISON OF MATERIALS USED
Chemicals :
Salt, Ib
Soda ash, Ib
Lime, Ib
Total, Ib
Water, gal.
Open
Discharqe
92,500
92,500
59,000
Open
Discharge
& Recovery
77,700
77,700
38,400
Hauling
and
Recovery
77,700
77,700
38,400
Reclaim
and
Recovery
15,900
14,550
1,600
32,050
(5,300)3
Portion of rinse water collected, resulting in a "negative" use of
water.
Partial recovery of salt is achieved by returning some of the dilute
rinse water to the brine saturator. This results in a saving of both
water and salt. This is shown in Table 14.
Both open discharge plus recovery; and hauling plus recovery result in
the discharge of 77,700 pounds of salt to the environment. In the
first case to the sewer, in the second to an acceptable but perhaps
distant place.
Reclamation plus recovery reduces chemical purchases from 92,500
pounds to 32,050 pounds. Thus reducing (even if there were no other
consideration) the effect on the local environment to about one-third
the previous effect.
Water usage is also decreased—by reuse—thus decreasing the depletion
of this resource.
It is shown that the gross quantity of resources used and therefore
discharged is greatly reduced. The effect of the consumption of I soda
ash and lime and the processing of these chemicals on the total
environment is unknown. It will be different than with the use of
sodium chloride.
It is probably in the matter of types of quantities and wastes that
52
-------
this process is valuable in protecting the environment. The major con-
stituent of the waste is an insoluble solid consisting of calcium
carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. The remainder is sodium chloride
brine which constitutes the liquid part of the sludge.
A discharge comparison is shown in Table 16. There is obviously a
similarity to Table 15. The difference is in the insolubles reported
in the present table. These are based on complete utilization of the
added chemicals. It is logical to expect 100% utilization because
theoretically low dosages were applied. Ample time for solution and
reaction was given, and agitation was vigorous.
Table 16. COMPARISON OF MATERIALS DISCHARGED
Open
Discharge
Open
Discharge
& Recovery
Hauling
and
Recovery
Reclaim
and
Recovery
Solubles, Ib 92,500
Insolubles:
77,700
77,700 15,900
CaC03, Ib
Mq(OHL, Ib
Total Ibs 92,500 77,700
Water, gal. 59,000 38,400
13,750
1,250
77,700 30,900
38,400 (5,300)a
Rinse water returned, resulting in a "negative" discharge.
The important difference between Tables 15 and 16 is the protection of
the environment in that a total of 15,000 pounds of waste is in the
form of an insoluble solid. '
As can be seen, chemical usage and actual discharge are reduced to
about one-third compared to the open discharge of regenerant brines.
Discharge of soluble waste which could potentially pollute a water
resource is reduced to about one-sixth. Water usage is reduced to a
"negative" value because of partial reuse of rinse water.
It is obvious that the reclamation process has less adverse impact on
the environment than does the uncontrolled discharge of regenerant
brines.
53
-------
SECTION 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors, Jim Burton and Ed Kreusch, gratefully acknowledge the
varied assistance received from many sources in completion of this
project. Financial support was received from the US Environmental
Protection Agency. The guidance and suggestion of the Agency's
officers, Mr. William J. Lacy, Mr. Arthur H. Mallon and Mr. Vern
W. Tenney were helpful.
The personnel and plant facilities of the central regeneration
facility for portable exchange water softeners located in Riverside,
California and known as, "Culligan Water Conditioning of the Inland
Empire", were a basic necessity for the successful completion of
the project. The facility provided a convenient source of raw
materials in the form of a waste brine for our tests. This avail-
ability eliminated the need for making a synthetic regenerant waste.
The cooperation, services and tolerance of the personnel at this
facility provided a friendly atmosphere.
The services of the Project Engineer, Mr. Jose Guiterrez were
valuable in performing the tests in the brine reclamation plant.
Mr. Guiterrez had sole responsibility for the operation of the
reclamation plant from the purchase of the chemicals through the
disposition of the reaction products. The analytical services of
Mr. Dean Geddes at the Culligan Analytical Laboratory in San Bernardino,
California were helpful in the control and evaluation ,of the project
and its results.
Other services of the separate departments of the parent company,
Culligan International Company, and its subsidiaries, are gratefully
recognized. Their assistance, which was beyond their responsibilities
in support of the commercial organization, embraced areas which were
beyond the fields of specialization of the authors.
54
-------
SECTION 7
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Alkalinity - In water or brine solution is usually due to the presence
of bicarbonate, carbonate and hydrate ions.
Acid - Any compound of hydrogen and at least one other element that
produces hydrogen ions when dissolved in water or certain other
solvents. The resulting solutions are sour and turn Litmus paper red.
Base - A substance capable of changing Litmus paper blue, and of
neutralizing acids to form salts. Base is a more general term than
alkali.
Brine - A solution of sodium chloride (common salt) used to regenerate
or recharge water softeners.
Calcium & Magnesium - Two of the elements making up the earth's crust,
the compounds of which when dissolved in water make the water hard.
The presence of calcium and magnesium in water is a factor contributing
to the formation of scale, and insoluble soap curds which are means of
clearly identifying hard water.
Calcium carbonate equivalent - Is commonly used for expressing all
forms of hardness and other salts in the same terms.
Cullex - A synthetic cation ^exchange resin chemically described as a
sulfonated co-polymer of styrene and divinyl-benzene. Cullex is one
of the most durable and highest capacity water softening resins
available. :
Effluent - The water or solution which emerges from a water softener
during any phase of the operating cycle.
Grain per gallon (GPG) - A common basis (unit) of reporting water
analysis in the United States. One grain per US gallon equals 17.1
parts per million (ppm).
Hardness - Dissolved calcium and magnesium salts in water. Compounds
55
-------
of these two elements are responsible for most scaling in pipes and
cause numerous problems in laundry, kitchen and bath.
Hydrated lime - Is the commercial name for calcium hydroxide.
Empirical formula - Ca(OH) .
Ion exchange - A process whereby ions in solution are interchanged for
others from a reactive material.
Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU) - A comparative unit used to quantify
the amount of turbidity present.
pH value - A number denoting alkalinity or acidity. The pH scale runs
from 0 to 14, 7.0 being the neutral point. Numbers below 7.0 indicate
acidity, which increases as the number becomes smaller. Numbers above
7.0 indicate alkalinity which increases as the numbers become larger.
Purity, brine - An expression to quantify presence of non-sodium salts
in brine. Is calculated in percent by dividing the sodium concentra-
tion by the concentration of the total cations.
Regeneration - In general includes the backwash, brine and fresh water
rinse steps necessary to prepare the exchanger bed for service after
exhaustion. Specifically, the term may be applied to the "brine" step
in which a sodium chloride solution is passed through the exchanger
bed. The sodium ions displace the hardness ions which are rinsed to
waste..
Rinse - That part of the recharge cycle of a water softener where
fresh water is introduced to remove spent regenerant and excess salt
prior to placing the softener into service.
Salometer - A hydrometer used to measure the specified gravity of brine
for measuring brine concentrations. The scale of measurement ranges
from 0-100, with the latter value associated with saturated (100%)
salt solutions. The brine concentrations are then reported in
"degrees salometer"; or, "°S". These "°S" readings are equal to
"percent of saturation", not "percent solution."
Salt - Sodium chloride used for regenerating water softeners.
Soda ash - The commercial name for the chemical compound sodium
carbonate — empirical formulat Na2COg.
Sludge - The waste product from the lime soda reaction. This thick
suspension .is a mixture of the insoluble precipitates of calcium
carbonate and magnesium hydroxide with residual soluble salts.
Service exchange softener - A portable ion exchange water softener.
This is the home service water softener tank that undergoes brine
56
-------
regeneration after the mineral has lost its ability to exchange sodium
ions for hardness ions (calcium and magnesium).
Turbidity - Lack of clarity. In liquids, refers to suspended,
undissolved solids.
Waste brine - A mixture of the chlorides of sodium, calcium and
magnesium in water solution. This is an effluent from the regeneration
of service exchange softeners.
57
-------
SECTION 8
REFERENCES
1. "Handbook of Chemistry", edited by Norbert Lange, Handbook
Publishers, Inc, Sandusky, Ohio.
2. Nordell, E., "Water Treatment for Industrial and Other Uses",
New York, Reinhold Publishing Corporation, Second Edition,
1961.
58
-------
APPENDICES
Appendix
A. Optimization Test Data Sheets, Runs 1-48 61
B. Summary of Hydrochloric Acid Requirements 75
C. Riverside Lab Procedure - Optimum Dosage Determination 77
D. Plant Description, Operation and Analytical Procedures 84
I. Equipment Description 85
II. Sampling Procedures 91
III. Analytical Requirements 91
IV. Laboratory Supplies and Equipment 92
V. Analytical Procedures 94
VI. Calculation of Chemical Requirements 95
VII. Collection and Storage of Waste Brine 97
VIII. Transfer of Waste Brine to Reactor 97
i
IX. Chemical Addition to Reactor 99
X. Decanting Treated Brine from the Reactor Tank
XI. Sludge Discharge 103
XII. Reclaim Brine Transfer from Brine Pit to
Regeneration Plant 105
E. Percent Purity 106
F. Brine Table at 60°F 108
59
-------
Appendix Page
G. Demonstration Test Data Sheets, Runs 1A-174A 111
60
-------
APPENDIX A
OPTIMIZATION TEST DATA SHEETS
RUNS 1-48
61
-------
The following pages provide a summary for each of the Process
Optimization test runs.
Items such as "Volume", "Strength", and "Magnesium Hardness" are
actual measurements. Items such as, "Solubles, Total Lb", and
"% Theoretical" are calculations for that run.
In the rows for waste data, two values are recorded, thus 3290/3395,
Two methods of determining solubles and insolubles were used,
sometimes with noticeable lack of agreement. Scale-up errors and
sampling difficulties may account for this divergence.
Values to the left of the slash are determined from the loss in
weight of the dried sludge by leaching with demineralized water.
Values to the right of the slash are determined from an analysis
of the brine which is the liquid part of the sludge.
62
-------
BRINK RECLAMATION Tl'ST RUN DAY A
1
11-23-71
3000
60°
4400
540
2375
150
95%
1300
100%
2400
567.
3260
50
98%
1
700
76.7
2
11-30-71
3000
62°
4600
530
2390
150
90%
1000
75%
2400
61%
3600
450
95%
2
700
ANALYSIS PR
NOT ESTA
76.7
3
12-2-71
3000
62°
4600
520
2280
150
92%
1100
87%
2400
61%
3600
290
97%
3
700
DCEDURE
JLISHED
76.7
4
12-3-71
3000
58°
4250
525
2325
150
91%
1200
93%
2400
i
57%
3340
100
98%
4
700
76.7
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMISER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
These first series of test runs were made with a constant dosage of hydrated
lime and variable dosages of soda ash. The reclaimed brine has high pH level
and difficulties encountered with the sludge discharge due to hard lumps of
precipitated hardness.
63
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST NUN DATA
5
12-6-71
3000
58°
4250
760
2220
200
84%
1200
89%
2400
57%
3340
378
95%
6
12-8-71
2500
57°
3500
580
2220
150
99%
1000
95%
2400
57%
3340
10
99%
5-6
900
ANALYSIS P
NOT ESTABL
83.7
7
12-10-71
3000
55°
4000
580
2200
150
83%
1000
80%
2400
54%
3150
590
92%
7
700
IOCEDURE
[SHED
76.7
8
12-14-7:
3000 .
58°
4250
580
2100
150
83%
1000
83%
2400
57%
3340
480
94%
8
700
76.7
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical.
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS: Due to t^le accumulation of hard lumps of unreacted soda ash at the bottom of the
reactor tank, the rate of agitation and chemical addition has been reduced by 50%.
Still encountered problems with the sludge discharge.
64
-------
BRIKi; RECLAMATION TEST KUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salomctcr
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solublcs
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
9
12-17-71
3000
59°
4350
580
2280
150
83%
1100
85%
2400
57°
3340
440
94%
9
700
ANALYSIS
76.7
10
12-21-71
3000
59°
435&
640
2275
none
0%
1300
100%
2400
57°
3340
495
94%
10
700
'ROCEDURE NOT
76.7
11
12-22-71
3000
60°
4400
520
2260
none
0%
1200
95%
2400
59°
3480
510
94%
11
700
ESTABLISHED
76.7
12
12-27-71
3000
60°
4400
550
2300
none
0%
1200
93%
2400
58°
3400
530
93%
12
700
76.7
REMARKS: These tests were made for the possible elimination of hydrated Ijme for waste brine
hardness reduction. The sludge was observed to be bulky and somewhat gummy in texture.
The sludge is still hard to handle. ___^_^^__
65
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
13
12-29-71
3000
61°
4500
530
2150
none
0%
1100
90%
2400
59°
3480
550
93%
13
700
ANALYSIS
76.7
14
1-7-72
3000
60°
4400
570
2250
none
0%
1200
94%
2200
59°
3200
460
94%
14
900
'ROCEDURE NOT
70.0
15
1-10-72
3000
58°
4300
550
2250
150
87%
1100
97%
2700
57°
3760
380
95%
ESTABLISHED
16
1-12-72
2500
57°
3480
590
2120
150
96%
900
87%
2300
56°
3150
360
95%
15-16
900
83.7
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS: A comparison of test runs with hydrated lime and without hydrated were made1 to ;'
investigate the texture of the sludge form and quality of the reclaimed brine. Also,
the addition of a recycle line of the reactor tank improved the system to sludge discharge
66
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
17
1-14-72
2900
57°
4050
580
2100
150
857.
1000
847.
2700
56°
3700
405
957«
18
1-17-72
2600
59°
3760
650
2300
150
847.
1000
87%
2300
58°
3270
365
96%
19
1-20-72
2900
60°
4280
575
2425
150
86%
1100
84%
2700
59°
3920
420
95%
20
1-21-72
2600 .
58°
3700
580
2270
150
94%
900
88%
2300
1
57°
3200
470
95%
19-20
900
3910
1850
83.7
77.1
REMARKS: These test runs were made to reduce the waste with respect ot the volume and
quantity of soluble present with the sludge.This was accomplished by making a
single discharge of sludge for two complete test runs. The quality of the reclaimed
brine has improved with the use of both soda ash and hydrated lime.
67
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
""" Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
21
1-25-72
2900
57°
4050
580
2160
150
85%
1000
83%
2700
56°
3700
410
95%
22
1-27-72
2600
57°
3620
540
1960
100
68%
800
81%
2300
57°
3200
380
95%
21&22
900
3045^-"--
^*-**4175
1635,— -^
^,^-^05
83.7
78.7^. — '
^—-^93.4
23
1-28-72
2900
59°
4200
580
1980
100
57%
900
80%
2700
58°
3840
465
95%
24
2-1-72
2600
59°
3760
580
2060
100
63%
800
77%
2300
58°
3260
525
94%
23&24
900
252PX-**"'
^^145
772— •**"
,-^t>45
83.7
90A^--
-<-**92.0
REMARKS: These teat runs were made to reduce the waste further by discharging the waste
(nlndge) ?fter two test runs of process optimization. The quality of the reclaimed
brine has been maintained above the minimum purity level of 95%.
68
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
25
2-2-72
2900
58°
4120
640
2040
100
517.
900
77%
2700
56°
3700
535
947.
26
2-4-72
2600
56°
3560
600
1880
100
617.
800
827,
2300
55°
3082
365
957.
27
2-7-72
2300
58°
3270
525
2040
50
407.
700
787.
2300
57°
3200
465
957.
25,26 & 27
900
4610^^-—
^-^**5440
LSfa}^***'
88.5
86.0^—'
^^ — 15.5
28
2-8-72
2900
58°
4120
525
1925
100
627.
900
757.
2700
57°
3760
435
957,
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINK
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
7. Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
7. Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, 7. Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7.
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS: These test runs were made to make a comparison of the quality of reclaimed brine
with a reduction of dosages in hydrated lime and a further reduction of waste by
discharging waste sludge after three (3) test runs of process optimization.
69
-------
BRINK RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
29
2-9-72
2600
58°
3700
585
1980
100
62%
800
80%
2300
57°
3200
435
95%
30
2-10-72
2300
56°
3140
535
1915
100
77%
700
82%
2300
55°
3080
410
95%
28.29&30
900
^^•^"3335
59
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, "Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7,
Volume
Solubles
33
2-16-72
2600
58°
3700
555
1950
none
0%
765
78%
2300
57°
3200
595
93%
31.32&33
900
5835*-
^••^5980
" 715^>^
^-- — 570
88.9
93.7^ — —
^---*95.0
34
2-18-72
2900
58°
4100
540
2050
none
0%
900
80%
2700
57°
3760
605
93%
35
2-21-72
2600
58°
3700
525
2120
none
0%
900
87%
2600
57°
3630
465
94%
36
2-22-72
2600
58°
3700
530
2070
none
0%
800
79%
2400
57°
3320
640
93%
34,35&36
1000
279jl^ —
^-""3180
226JU-""
^^^1870
87.5
80.4X--'
^-^83.7
REMARKS: These test runs were made to observe the effect of not using hydrated lime for
chemical reaction with soda ash. The reclaimed brine quality is under consideration,
so a capacity check was made on water softeners regenerated with this brine.
71
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
37
2-23-72
2900
59°
4200
580
2040
100
57%
900
79%
2600
57°
3620
510
94%
38
2-24-72
2600
58°
3700
585
2065
100
62%
800
777,
2600
56°
3560
585
93%
39
2-29-72
2600
58°
3700
585
2215
100
62%
900
82%
2600
57°
3620
395
95%
37,38 & 39
900
4930^*-—
^^*^5005
500^-*'
^^-^•"425
88.9
»3.3-^^'
^^****96.0
40
3-2-72
2900
o
58
4100
555
2095
100
59%
900
78%
2700
57°
3760
485
94%
REMARKS: These test runs were made to observe the nature of the sludge form with the use of
soda ash along for reaction. The sludge was observed to be gummy and bulky. Acid
requirement for pH adjustment is quite high.
72
-------
BKIKE RECLAMATION TTST RUN DATA
TKST HUN
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINK
Volume, Gallons
Strength, "Salometcr
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
41
3-3-72
2600
57°
3620
525
2025
100
69%
800
80%
2500
56°
3420
410
94%
42
3-7-72
2500
58°
3520
1960
1960
100
67%
850
89%
2500
57°
3480
390
95%
40,41 & 42
900
5390^---"
^-•^"5390
580^.
^ "580
88.9
^^y^
43
3-9-72
2900
o
57
4100
1875
1875
none
0%
1050
100%
2500
56°
3400
390
95%
44
3-10-72
2500
58°
3550
1870
1870
100
72%
750
83%
2500
o
57
3480
490
94%
REMARKS: These test runs were made to establish the optimum dosages of soda ash and hydrated
lime. The quality of the treated brine was also verified for putity level.
73
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN miMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Saloroeter
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF HASTE %
Volume
Solubles
45
3*13-72
2500
57°
3480
535
1920
100
71%
800
83%
2500
56°
3420
485
94%
43,44&45
900
529§^--^
,^--~5780
955^ — -~
88.9
91.4^— "
^---SsTs
46
3-14-72
2900
58°
4100 .
525
1925
100
63%
900
84%
2700
57°
3770
445
95%
47
3-15-72
2700
58°
3820
535
1965
100
66%
850
83%
2500
57°
3480
425
95%
48
3-16-72
2500
57°
3480
555
1925
100
68%
800
86%
2500
0
56
3420
440
95%
46,47 &48
900
5100^--'
^-^1385
900^^"
88.9
92.1^--"'
REMARKS: These test runs were made to investigate the best combination of soda ash and
hydrated lime dosages that could be used as the standard optimum dosages in a soda lime
hardness reduction process.
74
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF HYDROCHLORIC ACID REQUIREMENTS
75
-------
APPENDIX-
Muriatic Acid Required
Test
Run #
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Reclaimed
Brine
(Gallon)
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2400
2200
2700
2300
2700
2300
2700
2300
2700
2300
2700
2300
pH
Reading
10.0
7.4
8.5
9.7
9.5
10.6
6.6
7.8
7.9
10.5
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
8.5
8.8
7.1
8.7
8.7
7,6
8.4
8.5
8.4
806
for pH Adjustment
1 1
NCR
Used
(ML)
15,500
0.0
840
9,060
5,080
7,870
0.0
0.0
0.0
11,300
10,650
9,850
9,500
10,600
840
560
0.0
420
• 420
0.0
380
300
225
220
Test
Run *
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
- Process Optimization
Reclaimed
Brine
(Gallon)
2700
2300
2300
2700
2300
2300
2700
2600
2300
2700
2600
2400
2600
2600
2600
2700
2500
2500
2500
2500
2500
2700
2500
2500
PH
Reading
8.9
9.4
9.7
8.5
8.5
8.6
8.8
9.8
8.8
9.6
10.8
9.8
8.8
7.9
8.9
8.7
8.8
8.9
10.8
8.9
8.9
9.0
8.9
8.8
HCI
Used
(ML)
285
1,830
2,420
350
250
250
315
3,400
350
6,600
9,700
4,700
545
0.0
305
635
940
2,340
14,600
440
350
410
320
265
76
-------
APPENDIX C
RIVERSIDE LAB PROCEDURE
OPTIMUM DOSAGE DETERMINATION
77
-------
RIVERSIDE LAB PROCEDURE - OPTIMUM DOSAGE DETERMINATION
I. PROCEDURE
1. Use waste brine from Riverside.
2. Analyze - pH, Mg, Ca, Salometer.
3. Using 200 ml samples, five separate tests:
a. Add 50$ stoichiometric of soda ash to beaker "A",
stir.
b. Add 75% stoichiometric of soda ash to beaker "B",
stir.
c. Add 85% stoichiometric of soda ash to beaker "C",
stir.
d. Add 100% stoichiometric of soda ash to beaker "D",
stir.
e. Add 110% stoichiometric of soda ash to beaker "E",.
stir.
4. At 15 minute intervals, analyze and record the composition
of the reacting brine for the following: (The analyses to
be made on a filtered sample.)
a. pH
b. magnesium
c. calcium
5. Tabulate results of analyses and graphically represent the
values as a function of time of stirring.
a. Final pH vs dosage.
b. pH vs time at 50%, 75%, etc.
c. Ca concentration vs time at 50%, 75%, etc.
d. Mg concentration vs time at 50%, 75%, etc.
6. Choose optimum time and dosage from these by the point of
maximum calcium removal. (Minimum calcium concentration.)
78
-------
7. Use five new, separate, 200 ml samples of brine.
8. Without using soda ash, add hydrated lime at the following
dosages, as a percent of stoichiometric.
Beaker Lime Dosage, %
"F"
"G"
"H"
It T II
HJtl
50
68
75
100
110
9. Repeat Steps 4 and 5.
10. Choose optimum lime dosage and mixing time based on
producing 95% purity, rather than on obtaining maximum
magnesium removal.
II. INITIAL ANALYSES AND DOSAGE CALCULATION
1. Experimental Determinations
a. Volume of waste brine sample - 500 ml.
b. Reaction time for lime soda process 90 minutes.
c. Time intervals for determination - 10 and 15 minutes.
d. Determinations - calcium, magnesium and pH.
2. Waste Brine Chemical Analysis
a. Total volume - 500 ml.
o
b. Concentration - 57 salometer.
c. Total hardness - 2450 grains per gallon.
d. Calcium hardness - 1925 gpg.
e. Magnesium hardness - 525 gpg.
f. pH reading - 6.4.
79
-------
3. Chemical Dosages
a. Soda ash (85% of stoichiometric)
= total hardness x (0.0151) x ml x gal, x 1
ml gal.
x gram
Ib
= 2450 x 0.0151 x 500 x _1 x 1 x 454
3785 100
= 22 grams x 0.85 = 18.70 grams
b. Hydrated lime (68% of stoichiometric)
= magnesium hardness x (0.0105) x ml x gal.
ml
x 1 x gram
gal. Ib
= 525 x 0.0105 x 500 x 1_ x 1 x 454
3785 100
= 3.3 grams x 0.68 = 2.22 grams
80
-------
III. REACTIONS DATA - SODA ASH ONLY
Table 17. ANALYSES OF LABORATORY REACTIONS SOLUTIONS.
(Analyses expressed in grains per gallon, as
CaC03; except that pH is in units.)
Variables
bO% Dosage
TH
Ca
Mg
pH
75% Dosage
TH
Ca
Mg
pH
85%. Dosage
TH
Ca
Mg
pH
100% Dosage
TH
Ca
Mg
pH
110% Dosage
TH
Ca
Mg
pH
0 Minutes
2450
1925
525
6.4
2450
1925
525
6.4
2450
1925
525
6.4
2450
1925
525
6.4
2450
1925
525
6.4
15 Min.
2045
1520
525
7.0
1460
935
525
7.0
1520
935
525
7.2
1810
1285
525
7.2
1750
1225
525
7.4
30 Min.
1750
1225
525
7.3
1050
525
525
7.5
935
410
525
8.3
815
290
525
8.1
760
235
525
8.3
45 Min.
1460
935
525
7.4
700
175
525
8.0
700
210
490
9.0
410
30
380
9.0
410
0
410
9.2
60 Min.
1225
700
525
7.5
610
85
525
8.4
465
0
465
9.4
350
0
350
9.8
320
0
320
10.0
81
-------
IV. REACTION DATA - LIME ONLY
Table 18. ANALYSES OF LABORATORY REACTIONS SOLUTIONS.
(Analysis expressed in grains per gallon, as CaCOgj
except that pH is in units.)
Variables Q Minutes 15 Min. 30 Min. 45 Win. 60 Mini.
50% Dosage
TH 2450 2400 2295 2360 2450
Ca 1925 1940 1990 2075 2166
Mg 525 460 305 285 285
pH 6.4 7.0 8.4 8.8 9.0
68% Dosage
TH 2450 2400 2260 2405 2450
Ca 1925 1950 1990 2230 2275
Mg 525 450 270 175 175
pH 6.4 7.6 8.5 8.9 9.1
75% Dosage
TH 2450 2360 2180 2275 2450
Ca 1925 1950 1995 2130 2305
Mg 525 410 185 145 145
pH 6.4 8.0 8.5 8.8 9.1
100% Dosage
TH 2450 2335 2275 2395 2450
Ca 1925 1985 2045 2280 2420
Mg 525 350 230 115 30
pH 6.4 9.1 9.4 9.5 9.5
Dosage
TH 2450 2395 4330 2395 ' 2450
Ca 1925 2045 2100 2280 ' 2450
Mg 525 350 230 115 0
pH 6.4 9.1 9.4 9.5 9.5
82
-------
V, REACTIONS DATA - SODA ASH AND LIME
Table 19. ANALYSES OF LABORATORY REACTIONS SOLUTIONS.8
(Analysis expressed in grains per gallon, as
CaCO ; except that pH is in units.)
Calcium Magnesium
Hardness, Hardnesst pHf
gpg gpg unit
0 1925 525 6.4
10 990 525 7.3
20 720 525 8.0
30 235 525 8.5
45 0 525 9.4
55 0 525 9.4
65 60 375 9.3
75 145 320 9.2
90 185 200 9.1
aSolutions treated with soda ash (85% stoichiometric),
stirred 45 minutes, treated with hydrated lime (68$
stoichiometric) and stirred 45 additional minutes.
Average values from triplicate tests.
83
-------
APPENDIX D
PLANT DESCRIPTION, OPERATION AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
84
-------
PLANT DESCRIPTION, OPERATION AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
I. EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION - See Figure 21, "Flow Diagram."
A. Valves
Valve No.
1
1A
IB
2A
6A
7
8
Identification
Location
Waste brine valve to storage tank Waste brine line
Waste brine valve to brine pool Waste brine line
Waste brine valve from brine
pool to storage tank
Waste brine transfer valve
Waste brine drain valve
Reactor tank discharge valve
Recycle line valve
Sludge disposal valve
Decanting valve
Lower decanting valve
Drain valve
Sludge and brine cut-off valve
Waste brine line
Storage tank
transfer line
Storage tank
transfer line
Reactor tank
bottom discharge
Recycle line to
reactor tank
Sludge disposal
line
Reactor tank
decanting outlet
Reactor tank
upper drain outlet
Reactor tank
lower drain outlet
Reactor tank
bottom discharge
85
-------
Chemical Conveyor-
Waste Brine
00
Storage Tank
9'OD x 7'
Reactor Pump
_/
(2) ^;
(2A)d
I
Conveyor Hopper
,
chem
lopper
i
V
"
1
—\
i ^ s
./'Y-
•HT*-
i
i
i
t
V
\
\
f»(4)
HZT^iii
Reactor Mixer
Feeder Valve
Reactor Tank: 9'OD, 7'Side
Sewer
Brine Pool Pump
Sludge Truck.^_
Brine Pool
149"OD x 41 j
-Brine Pump
Reclaimed Brine'
Brine Pit |
11' x 81 x 6' I
Figure 21 . Flow Diagram - Brine Reclamation Plant,
-------
B. Switches, located in the control panel
Switch identification
Panel main control. Energizes all electric controls.
Reactor mixer. Continuous operation of mixer, as desired.
Reactor sludge transfer pump. Continuous operation, as
energized, for sludge transfer: either for
discharge or recirculation.
Reactor pump. Continuous operation of pump to transfer
brine into reactor, as energized.
Brine pump. Continuous operation of pump to transfer
reclaimed brine to regeneration plant, as energized.
Chemical feeder valve. Cyclic operation of feeder dis-
charge. Controlled by feeder timer.
Floor sump pump. Float controlled for automatic discharge.
Conveyer blower. Pneumatically transfers dry lime and soda
ash continuously from lower hopper to upper hopper.
Master control of all switches.
Feeder heater. Thermostatically controlled at heater to
reduce humidity, thereby avoiding agglomeration of
chemicals.
Feeder timer. To control cyclic operation of feeder
discharge valve.
87
-------
C. Pumps and other equipment
Identification Location Function & Comments
Brine pool pump
Near brine pool
Reactor pump
Near storage tank
Brine pump
Near brine pit
Reactor sludge pump Near reactor tank
Floor sump pump
Reactor mixer
Near drain trough
Top of reactor
Chemical hopper
Chemical conveyer
Floor level
From floor to top
of reactor tank
Transfer waste brine
from brine pool to
storage tank. Price
E100-100B, 1 HP,
bronze centrifugal.
40 gpm at 68 ft of
head. Manually con-
trolled.
Transfer waste brine
from storage tank to
reactor tank. Same
style pump as brine
pool pump.
Transfer reclaimed
brine to regeneration
plant. Same style as
brine pool pump.
Pump sludge for dis-
posal or recycle
reactants to the
reactor tank. Moyno
CDQ, frame 2LB, 3 HP,
900 RPM, 24 gpm.
Pump floor wastes to
sewer discharge.
Mix reacting chemical
and brine. Eastern
RG8-NTR, 3 HP, 400
RPM, totally
enclosed.
Supply chemicals to
conveyer.
Convey soda ash and
hydrated lime to
reactor. Watubo
2000 energizer on
16" cyclone.
88
-------
Identification
Chemical feeder valve
Electrical control
panel
Sludge truck
Location
Discharge of the
conveyer system
Back wall
Parking lot
Function & Comments
Discharge chemicals
at uniform rate.
Electric control of
motors or other
equipment
Sludge collection
and transfer to dump
site. Obsolete oil
tanker.
89
-------
D. Pipes and Fittings
Identification Color, size
Water pipes blue, 1" copper
Electric conduits orange, conduit
Waste brine pipes gray PVC, 1-1/2"
Waste brine trans- gray PVC, 1-1/2"
fer pipe
Decanting outlet gray PVC, 3"
pipe
Drain outlet pipe gray PVC, 1"
Sludge discharge gray PVC, 4"
pipe
Recycle pipe
gray PVC, 2"
Chemical conveying blue-green
tubes 2" aluminum
Brine line
Sump pipe
gray PVC, 1-1/2"
gray PVC, 1-1/2"
Function
Supply water for the
project
All electrical lines
Waste brine flow to
brine pool or storage
tank
Waste brine transfer to
reactor tank
Decant reclaimed brine
from reactor
Further recovery of
treated brine in drain
outlets
Bottom discharge of
sludge and recycle of
reactants
Recycle contents of
reactor
Convey soda ash and
hydrated lime to
reactor
Transfer reclaimed
brine to regeneration
plant
Transfer floor wastes
to sewer discharge
90
-------
II. SAMPLING PROCEDURES
A. Waste Brine
Fill a 1000 ml beaker with waste brine from the storage tank.
B. Regeneration Brine
Fill a 1000 ml beaker from the discharge line coming from
the plant brine regeneration line. To be obtained for each
three demonstration runs.
C. Reclaimed Brine
Fill a 1000 ml beaker with clear effluent in the reactor
tank. This sample is to be taken after overnight settling
before decantation.
D. Hard and Soft Water
Fill a 500 ml beaker from the hard water line in the
regeneration plant. This will be the influent water for the
water softener undergoing capacity check. Every hour during
the capacity check, collect a sample of the softened water
at the discharge of the water softener undergoing capacity
check. This will be done until this water is 1 gpg hard.
E. Sludge
Fill a 1000 ml bottle with sludge during the time of sludge
discharge to the sludge truck. This must be taken in
increments of 200 ml at intervals of 5 minutes.
III. ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Regeneration Brine Samples
1. Total hardness
2. pH
3. Concentration
4. Purity
B. Reclaimed Brine Samples
1. Total hardness
91
-------
2. Calcium hardness
3. Carbonate alkalinity
4. pH
5. Concentration
6. Purity
C. Water Samples
1. Total hardness
D. Sludge Samples (Analyzed at central laboratory)
1. Wet density, Ib/gal.
2. Settled sludge volume, %
3. Dry (105°C) density, Ib/gal.
4. Solubles: Percent weight loss from the dry sample
after a 250 ml wash with demineralized water.
IV. LABORATORY SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT
A. PH
1. Calibrated pH meter
2. 100 ml beaker for sample
3. Demineralized water in a wash bottle
B. Hardness Determination
1. 50 ml automatic buret
2. 250 ml erlenmeyer flask for sample
3. Demineralized water for sample dilution
4. 0.02N Versenate standard solution
5. Buffer solution for hardness
6. Indicators: Calcium, and total hardness
92
-------
C. Carbonate Alkalinity
1. 50 ml automatic buret
2. 0.02M H2S04 standard solution
3. Phenolphthalein indicator solution
4. 250 ml erlenmeyer flask for sample
D. Brine Concentration
1. Hydrometer cylinder
2. Salometer tube, calibrated in percent brine con-
centration (degrees Salometer)
3. Two 1000 ml beakers
E. Sludge Sample Containers
1. 1000 ml polyethylene bottles
2. 1000 ml graduated cylinder
F. Acid Adjustment
1. Graduated cylinder - 1000 ml
2. Gallon capacity acid bottles
3. 4000 ml polyethylene beaker
4. Concentrated hydrochloric acid
5. 6-inch diameter funnel
G. Miscellaneous
1. 1 ml pipets
2. Graduated cylinder, 58.3 ml standard water sample
3. Timer - alarm, 120 minute
4. 500 ml beakers
93
-------
V. ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
A. Brine Calcium (or Total) Hardness - two tests, two samples
1. Pipet a 1 ml sample and transfer it to a 250 ml
erlenmeyer flask.
2. Dilute to about 100 ml with demineralized water.
3. Add 2 ml of hardness buffer solution.
4. Add a small quantity of calcium (or total) hardness
indicator to the sample.
5. Titrate with 0.02N Versenate solution.
6. Multiply the buret reading by 58.3 to calculate calcium
(or total) hardness concentration in grains per gallon
(gpg) expressed as CaCO_.
B. Water Calcium (or Total) Hardness - two tests, two samples
1. Transfer a 58.3 ml sample to a 250 ml flask for
titration.
2. Add 2 ml of hardness buffer solution.
3. Add a small quantity of calcium (or total) hardness
indicator.
4. Titrate with 0.02N Versenate solution.
5. Record the buret reading. This is numerically equal
to the calcium (or total) hardness in gpg as CaCO,,.
C. PH
1. Fill a 100 ml beaker with waste brine.
2. Insert the pH meter probes in sample.
3. Record the pH reading.
D. Concentration of brine, in Degrees Salometer
1. Fill the hydrometer cylinder with the sample.
2. Insert, with a mild spinning action, the salometer tube
in the sample.
94
-------
3. Take the direct reading of the soluble salt concentra-
tion.
4. Using the Brine Table in Appendix F and the salometer
reading, determine the pounds of soluble salts per
gallon of brine.
E. Brine Purity
1. Refer to Appendix E, "Percent Purity".
2. On the left column find the row that lists the brine
salometer.
3. Move to the right in this row to the column headed
with the nearest hundred of grains per gallon total
hardness.
4. The number in the square at this intersection is the
"Brine Purity" in percent. This refers to the percent
of sodium chloride present in the total salts.
F. Carbonate Alkalinity
1. Transfer a 58.3 ml sample to a 250 ml flask for
titration.
2. Add three drops of phenolphthalein indicator.
3. Titrate with 0.02N H2S04 to discharge the pink color.
4. Record the buret reading. This is numerically equal
to the carbonate alkalinity, expressed in gpg as
CaC03.
I
VI. CALCULATION OF CHEMICAL REQUIREMENTS
A. The calculations for the optimum dosages of soda ash and
hydrated lime are made using the following techniques:
95
-------
1. Stoichiometric requirement for hydrated lime — 100%
Ca(OH)2:
(Mg hardness) x (0.0105) x (total gal.) =
( 100 gal. )
(gr ) x (Eg wt Ca(OH)2 x 1 Ib ) x (gal.) =
gal. (Eq wt CaC03 7000 gr) (gal.)
pounds of hydrated lime per total batch.
Optimum dosage of hydrated lime is 63-72% of
stoichiometric.
2. Stoichiometric requirement for soda ash — 100% Na2C03:
(total hardness) x (0.0151) x (total gal.) =
100 gal.
( qr ) x (Eg wt Na^COg x 1 Ib ) x (gal.) =
(gal.) (Eq wt CaC03 7000 gr) (gal.)
pounds of soda ash per total batch. Optimum
dosage is 83-87% of stoichiometric.
3. Acid requirement for 35% hydrochloric acid having a
density of 9.7 pounds per gallon:
(Carbonate alkalinity) x (0.03) x (3785) x (total gal.) =
( 9.7) ( 100 gal. )
( gr ) x (Eq wt HC1 x 1 Ib x 1 )x (ml/gal.) x (gal.)
(gal.) (Eq wt CaC03 7000 gr 0.35) (ib/gal.) (gal.)
ml of hydrochloric acid (HCl) per total batch.
The acid requirement is this stoichiometric amount.
o
4. Amount of 100 S brine needed to adjust decanted brine to
60°S:
1.4744-C x V = V1
1.1725
where,
o
1.4744 is the pounds of salt per gallon of 60 S
brine. (Appendix F)
96
-------
C is the pounds of salt per gallon of brine
decanted.
1.1725 is the "excess" pounds (over that in 60°S
brine) of salt per gallon of 100°S brine.
V is the gallons of brine decanted.
V is the gallons of 100°S brine needed.
VII. COLLECTION AND STORAGE OF WASTE BRINE - See Figure 21
Waste brine is collected from the effluent of the water
softener's regeneration and is stored as follows.
A. Waste Brine Collection in the Brine Pool
1. Open Valve No. 1A.
2. Close Valve No. 1 and IB.
3. Transfer of waste brine is controlled during regener-
ation. Therefore, the only attention required is to
avoid overfilling the brine pool.
B. Waste Brine Transfer from Brine Pool to Storage Tank
1. Open Valve No. IB.
2. Close Valve No. 1 and 1A.
3. Transfer waste brine by pump. Connect electrically
the transfer pump near the brine pool. Manual control
is necessary—do not overfill storage tank.
i
C. Waste Brine Collection Directly in Storage Tank.
1. Open Valve No. 1.
2. Close Valve No. 1A and IB.
Note: Watch waste brine level in the storage tank. Manual
control is necessary—do not overfill the storage tank.
VIII. TRANSFER OF WASTE BRINE TO REACTOR - See Figure 21 and 22
A. Transfer waste brine to reactor tank (after measuring
volume and analyzing brine).
97
-------
Waste Brine
Waste Brine
Storage Tank
Reactor Tank
(2a) (3) (8)
Brine
Pit
•Transfer Pump
Figure 22. Flow Diagram - Transfer of Waste Brine to
Reactor Tank.
98
-------
1. Valve Control
a. Open Valves No. 1A and 2.
b. Close all other valves.
2. Switches Operating Sequence:
a. Panel main control switch on.
b. Master control switch on.
c. Reactor pump switch on.
d. The remaining switches off.
e. Switch off all main switches when waste brine
transfer to reactor tank is complete.
f. Close Valve No. 2.
3. Pump
a. Reactor pump transfers a known volume of waste
brine to the reactor tank.
b. Manual control is necessary.
c. Switch off pump when brine transfer to the reactor
tank is complete.
4. Pipe and Fitting Connections
Verify that waste brine flows from the storage tank
through the waste brine transfer line to the top of
the reactor tank.
IX. CHEMICAL ADDITION TO REACTOR TANK - See Figure 23
With the dosages of chemicals known and ready for addition,
the operation continues in this manner:
A. Valve Control
1. Verify that Valves No. 3 and 4 are open.
B. Switches Operating Sequence
1. Panel main control switch on.
99
-------
'•
Recycle Line
|
i
Air
Chemicals
Figure 23. Flow Diagram - Chemical Addition and Recirculation
of Reactants.
100
-------
2. Master control switch on.
3. Reactor sludge pump and mixer; feeder heater and valve;
and conveyer blower switches on.
4. The remaining switches are off.
5. Feeder heater and valve, and conveyer blower are to
be switched off when addition of chemicals is complete.
6. Reactor sludge pump and mixer switches will be kept on
for one hour additional reaction time, then switched
off.
Pumps
Sludge pump will run continuously to recycle reacting
solution during chemical addition and while reaction later
continues in the reactor tank.
Note: Verify that brine flows through the reactor tank
bottom discharge and the recycle line. During chemical
feed, verify that chemicals flow through the conveyer
tube to the discharge at the chemical feeder valve.
X. DECANTING TREATED BRINE FROM THE REACTOR TANK See Figure 24
After overnight settling, the clear reclaimable brine has been
completely separated from the sludge. The clear brine will be
analyzed, then decanted with this procedure.
A. Valve Control
1. Close all valves.
2. Open Valve No. 6.
3. Valve No. 6A may also be opened if clear brine is
below that level.
4. Close Valves No. 6 and 6A when decantation is complete.
B. Switches and Pumps
Decantation is by gravity. No switches to be set, nor pumps
to run.
101
-------
Reactor Tank
Decanting Outlet
Drain Outlet
•Reclaimed Brine
Brine Pit
Figure 24. Flow Diagram - Decanting Brine to Brine Pit,
102
-------
C. Pipes and Fitting Connections
Inspect the flow of treated brine through the decanting
pipe to avoid a discharge that is very turbulent in the
brine pit. It may be necessary to throttle Valve No. 6
and 6A.
D. Adjustment of pH
Gradually add the required hydrochloric acid to the brine
pit at the place of mixing by the return brine.
XI. SLUDGE DISCHARGE - See Figure 25
After decantation of reclaimable brine, the sludge will be
retained for three runs. The sludge will then be transferred
to the sludge truck. The sequence of operation is as follows:
A. Park the sludge truck so its tank manhole will reach the
sludge discharge flexible hose.
B. Valve Control
1. Open Valves No. 3 and 5.
2. Close all other valves.
C. Switch Operating Sequence
1. Panel main switch on.
2. Master control switch on.
3. Reactor sludge pump switch on.
4. The remaining switches are off.
5. Switch off all switches after the complete discharge
of sludge.
D. Pump
The sludge pump must be kept running until all sludge is
transferred to the sludge truck. It may be necessary to
manually agitate the sludge in the reactor tank to
facilitate the discharge of sludge through the 4" discharge
pipe.
103
-------
Reactor Tank
(6)
Iflt
(3)
(8)
Sludge Pump
Sludge Truck
Figure 25 . Flow Diagram - Sludge Discharge,
104
-------
E. Pipe and Fitting Connection
Inspect the flow of sludge from time to time to the sludge
truck to verify transfer. At this inspection, collect the
sludge samples at five minute intervals in increments of
200 ml until a liter capacity polyethylene bottle is filled,
XII. RECLAIMED BRINE TRANSFER FROM BRINE PIT TO REGENERATION PLANT
The reclaimed brine can be transferred to the regenerant plant
as follows:
A. Valve Control
Open the 1.5" PVC valves located in the regeneration plant.
B. Switches Operating Sequence
1. Panel main switch on.
2. Master control switch on.
3. Brine pump switch on.
4. The remaining switches are off.
5. Switch off all switches after the complete transfer of
reclaimed brine.
105
-------
APPENDIX E
PERCENT PURITY
106
-------
APPENDIX E
PERCENT PURITY
Salometer
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
2
96
96
96
97
97
97
97
97
97
98
98
98
98
98
98
4
92
93
93
93
94
94
94
95
95
95
95
95
96
96
96
6
88
89
89
90
91
91
91
92
92
92
93
93
93
93
94
8
84
85
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
90
90
91
91
91
92
10
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
86
87
87
88
88
89
89
90
12
76
77
79
80
81
82
83
83
84
85
85
86
86
87
87
14
72
74
75
77
78
79
80
81
81
82
83
84
84
85
85
16
68
70
71
73
75
76
77
78
79
80
80
81
82
82
83
18
64
66
68
70
71
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
80
81
20
60
62
64
67
68
70
71
72
73
75
76
76
77
78
79
22
56
59
61
63
65
67
68
69
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
24
52
55
57
60
62
64
65
67
68
70
.71
72
73
74
75
Salometer
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
2
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
4
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
97
98
6
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
8
94
94
94
94
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
10
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
93
94
94
94
12
91
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
92
14
90
90
90
90
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
16
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
90
90
90
90
18
87
87
87
88
88
88
88
88
88
88
89
20
86
86
86
86
86
87
87
87
87
87
87
22
84
84
84
85
85
85
85
86
86
86
86
24
83
83
83
83
84
84
84
84
85
85
85
Calculation: Purity = (A-BC)A
where A = Ib salt/gal, brine x 7000 cjr
Ib
= gpg salt
B = eq wt NaCl/eq wt CaC03
, , , . _,_ ,, . oc C = brine total hardness, gpg CaCO
1.. Under "Salometer" column, find the brine strength in S. sra
2. Move right in this row to the column headed (from 2-24) with the nearest hundred
of gpg total hardness.
3. The number in this square is the Brine Purity in percent.
percent of sodium chloride present in the total salts.
This refers to the
-------
APPENDIX F
BRINE TABLE AT 60°F
108
-------
BRINE TABLE AT 60° F
STRENGTH OF BRINE
eter
deg.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
66
57
58
69
60
61
62
63
64
(55
66
67
68
6»
.
del.
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.9
2.1
2.4
2.7
3.0
3.3
3.5
3.7
4.0
4.2
4.5
4.8
5.0
5.3
5.6
5.8
6.1
6.4
67
6.9
7.2
7.4
7.7
7.9
8.2
H 5
it. 7
9.0
9.2
9.5
9.7
10.0
10.2
10.6
10.7
11.0
11.2
11.5
11.7
12.0
12.2
125
12.7
12.9
13.2
13.4
13.7
13.9
14.1
14.4
14 H
14.8
16.1
15.3
15.6
15.8
16.0
16.2
16.6
16.7
17.0
17.2
17.6
Spec.
irav.
1.000
r.002
1.004
1.006
1.008
1.010
1.011
1.013
1.015
1.017
1.019
1.021
1.023
1.025
1.027
1.029
1.031
1.032
1.034
1.036
1.038
1.040
1.042
1.U44
1.O46
1 048
1.050
1.052
1.054
1.056
1 1108
1.1160
1 .IH52
1.064
1.066
1 01
.8575
.8648
.8522
.8495
.8469
.8443
.8416
.8390
.R1I54
.8337
.Kill
.8284
.8258
.82.12
.8205
.8179
Igal
brine
8.32823
8.322
8.316
8.309
8.303
8.296
8.290
8.283
8.276
8.270
8.263
8.256
8.249
8.242
8.234
8.227
8.220
8.213
8.205
8.198
8.190
8.183
8.175
8.167
8.160
8.152
8 144
8 136
8.128
8.120
8.111
8.103
8.095
8087
8078
8070
8.0151
8053
8.044
8.035
8026
8017
8008
7.999
7.990
7.981
7.972
7963
7.953
7.944
7.934
7.925
7.915
7.905
7.895
7.886
7.876
7.866
7.856
7.846
7.835
7.825
7.815
7.805
7.794
7.784
7.773
7.763
7.752
7.742
Gal water per
1 Ib
salt
CO
45.3356
22 6254
15.0435
11.2526
8.9781
7.4617
6.3786
5.5663
4.9345
4.4290
4.0155
3.6708
3.3792
3.1293
2.9126
2.7231
2.5559
2.4072
2.2742
2.1545
2 0462
.9477
.8578
.7754
.6996
.6296
.5648
.5046
.4486
.3963
3474
.3015
.2584
.2179
1797
1436
.1094
0771
1.0464
1 0172
9895
.9630
.9:)79
.9138
.8908
.8689
.8478
.8277
.8083
.7897
.7719
.7547
.7382
.7223
.7070
.6923
.6780
.6643
.6610
.6381
.6257
.6136
.6020
5907
.5798
.6692
.6589
.5489
.6392
lib
brine
.12007
.11976
.11944
.11912
.11881
.11849
.11817
.11785
.11754
.11722
.11690
.11669
.11627
.11595
.11664
.11532
.11500
.11469
.11437
11405
.11373
.11342
.11.110
.11278
.11247
.11215
11183
.11152
.11120
.11088
.11066
.11025
.10993
.10961
.10930
.10898
.10866
.108.15
.10803
10771
.10740
.10708
.10676
.10644
.10613
10581
.10649
.10618
.10486
.10464
.10422
.10391
.10.159
.10328
.10296
.10264
.10232
.10201
.10169
.10137
.10106
.10074
.10042
.10011
.09979
.09947
.09918
09884
.09852
.09820
Igal
brine
1.0000
.9992
.9985
.9977
.9970
.9962
.9954
.9946
.9938
.9930
.9921
.9913
.9905
.9887
.9879
.9870
.9861
.9852
.9843
.9834
9825
.9816
.9807
.9797
.9788
.9779
.9769
.9759
.9750
.9740
.9730
.9720
.9710
.9700
.9690
.9679
.9669
.9668
.9648
.9637
.9627
.9616
.9605
.9594
.9583
.9572
.9561
.9550
.9538
.9527
.9515
.9504
.9492
.9480
.9468
.9457
.9445
.9433
.9420
.9408
.9396
.9384
.9371
.9359
.9.146
.9334
.9321
.9308
.9296
BRINE
Lb brine per
1 Ib
salt
CD
384.6154
188.6793
126.5823
94.3396
75.7576
63.2911
54.0541
47.3934
42.0168
37.8788
34.4828
31.5457
29.1545
27.0270
25.2525
23.6967
22 2717
21.0526
19.9203
18.9394
18 0505
17.2117
16 4745
157978
15 1515
14 5773
14.0253
13.5318
13.0719
12.6263
12 22-19
11 8.184
11.4811
11.1483
10 8225
10 5263
10 2:)54
9 9701
97182
9.4IM7
92421
9.0171
8.8106
8.6133
8.4175
8.2372
80580
7.8927
7 7340
7.5768
7.4294
7.2833
7.1480
7.0175
68S71
(i 7659
6.K445
8.5317
6.4226
6 3131
62112
6 1)25
6.0132
5.9207
5.8275
5.7405
56661
5 5710
5.4915
1 Ib
water
1.0000
1.0026
1.0053
1 0080
1.0107
1.0134
1.0161
1.0188
1.0216
1.0244
1.0271
1.0299
1.0327
1.0355
1.0384
1.0412
1.0441
1.0470
1.0499
1.0529
1 0657
I 0686
1. 0617
1.0646
1.0676
1.0707
1 0737
1.0768
1.0798
1.0828
1 08(50
0891
0923
I 0954
1.0985
1.1018
1 . 1 050
1 108.1
1 1115
1 1147
1 1181
1.1213
1.1247
1 1280
1 1314
1 1348
1.1382
.1417
1451
.1485
.1521
1556
.1592
.1627
.1662
1X99
.17:14
.1772
18118
.1844
.1882
.1910
.1956
1995
.2032
2071
.2109
.2148
1 2188
1.2226
• Igal
water
8328
8.350
8.372
8.395
8.417
8.440
8.462
8.485
8.508
8.531
8.554
8577
8.601
8.624
8648
8 672
8.696
8.720
8.744
8.768
8 792
8.817
H.842
88«7
8.892
8917
8942
8967
8.993
9019
9.044
9070
•J 0!>7
9.123
9.149
9.176
9 203
9.230
9257
9284
9.311
9 33SI
9367
9 395
9423
9.451
9.479
i r,
+ 2!) 3
»2» 1
+ 28.8
+ 285
,282
+ 27 9
j 27 6
-,273
+ 270
+ 267
+ 26 4
+ 26 1
+ 25 7
+ 254
+ 25.1
+ 24.7
. 24 4
• 24 0
»23 7
•* 23 3
. 2.1 0
. 22 h
- 22 3
+ 22.0
r 2 1 6
^21 3
+ 20 9
^-20 5
+ 20.2
, 1!) 8
+ 19 4
+ 19 I
+ 18 7
+ 183
+ 17 9
+ 17.5
+ 17 1
+ 167
1 162
+ 158
+ 154
-1 150
+ 14 5
+ 141
I 13.7
4 13 3
t 12 H
4-12.3
1 118
-> 11.4
4 10 9
+ 10 4
-t 9 9
, 9 4
1 8 !)
484
t 7 '.)
»7.3
i (5 8
• t; 3
"C
0.0
-0 1
-0.3
—I) 4
-0.5
-0 7
-)K
— .1)
- 1
— 3
- 5
i;
-1 8
-1 9
-2 1
-2 3
-2 4
-2 6
-2 8
-29
-3 1
-3 3
-3 5
-3 7
-3 8
-4 1
-4.2
—4 4
—4 (5
-4 8
— .r, 0
-5 2
-5 4
-5 6
-5 8
-59
-62
-6 4
—6 6
-68
-70
-7 2
-74
-7 6
—7 8
-8.1
-8 3
-8.5
-8 8
-9 0
-9.2
-94
— 9 7
—9 9
— H) 2
-104
-107
— 10 9
-112
-11 4
-11 7
-121)
-12 3
- 1 2 5
-12 8
-13 1
-134
- 1 :i 7
-HO
-14 3
-------
STRENGTH OF BRINE
eter
de|.
70
71
72
73
74
76
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
•88.3
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
99.6
100
del.
17.7
17.9
18.1
18.4
18.6
18.8
19.1
19.4
19.6
19.8
20.0
20.2
20.4
20.7
21.0
21.2
21.4
21.7
21.9
22.0
22.1
22.3
22.5
22.8
23.0
23.2
23.6
23.7
23.9
24.2
24.4
24.S
24.6
SMC
opcc.
grav.
1.139
1.141
1.143
1.145
1.147
1.149
1.151
1.154
1.156
1.168
1.160
1.162
1.164
1.167
1.169
1.171
1.173
1.175
1.177
1.178
1.180
1.182
1.184
1.186
1.188
1.190
1.193
1.195
1.197
1.199
1.202
1.203
1.204
% Salt
bvwtln
brine
18.4766
18.7405
19.0044
19.2684
19.6323
19.7963
20.0602
20.3242
20.6881
20.8520
21.1160
21.3800
21.6439
21.9079
22.1718
22.4358
22.6997
22.9637
23.2276
23.3100
23.4916
23.7665
24.0195
24.2834
24.6474
24.81 1M
26.0751
25.3392
25.6032
26.8671
26.1311
26.2850
26.3950
% Salt
bywtln
witer
22.6640
23.0626
23.4«35
23.8672
24.2736
24.6824
26.0941
26.5086
26.9257
26.3457
26.7684
27.1940
27.6225
28.0538
28.4881
28.9250
29.3656
29.8088
30.2651
30.3951
30.7045
31.1670
31.6126
32.0714
32.5334
32.9987
33.4672
33.9391
34.4143
34.8929
35.3749
36.6676
35.8603
SALT
lb sill per
1 lb
water
.2267
.2307
.2348
.2396
.2428
.2468
.2510
2650
.2693
.2635
.2677
.2720
.2762
.2805
.2848
.2893
.2937
.2981
.3026
.3039
.3071
.3115
.3161
.3206
.3264
.3296
.3346
.3394
.3441
.3489
.3538
.3566
.3687
l|«l
water
1.8875
1.9207
1.9541
1.9877
2.0216
2.0556
2.0899
2.1244
2.1592
2.1941
2.2293
2.2648
2.3005
2.3364
2.3726
2.4090
2.4456
2.4826
2.6197
2.6314
2.5572
2.5948
2.6328
2.6710
2.7095
2.7482
2.7872
2.8265
2.8661
2.9060
2.9462
2.9686
2.9865
lib
brine
.1848
.1874
.1900
.1927
.1953
.1980
.2006
.2032
.2059
.2085
.2112
.2138
.2164
.2191
.2217
.2244
.2270
.2296
2323
.2331
.2349
.2376
.2402
.2428
.2465
.2481
.2608
.2534
.2660
.2587
.2613
.2629
.2640
Hal
brine
1.7521
1.7805
1.8089
1.8374
i:8661
1.8948
1.9236
1.9526
1.9816
2.0107
2.0400
2.0693
2.0988
2.1283
2.1680
2.1877
2.2176
2.2475
2.2776
2.2870
2.3O77
2.3380
2.3683
2.3988
24294
2.4600
2.4908
2.6217
2.6526
2.5837
2.6160
2.6323
2.6469
WATER
Lb water per
1 lb
salt
4.411
4.335
4.263
4.174
4.119
4.052
3.984
3.922
3.857
3.796
3.736
3.676
3.621
3.565
3.511
3.457
3.405
3.355
3.305
3.291
3.256
3.210
3.164
3.119
3.073
3.034
2.989
2.946
2.90*!
2.866
2.826
2.804
2.788
1 lb
brine
.8162
.8126
.8100
.8073
.8047
.8020
.7994
.7968
.7941
.7915
.7888
.7862
.7836
.7809
.7783
.7757
.7730
.7704
.7677
.7669
.7661
.7624
.7698
.7572
.7545
.7519
.7492
.7466
.7440
.7413
.7387
.7372
.7361
l|at
brine
7.731
7.720
7.709
7.699
7.688
7.677
7.666
7.665
7.643
7.632
7.621
7.609
7.598
7.687
7.576
7.663
7.652
7.540
7.628
7.624
7.616
7.504
7.492
7.479
7.4S7
7.465
7.442
7.430
7.417
7.405
7.392
7.385
7.381
Gal water per
1 lb
salt
.6298
.6206
.5117
.6031
.4947
.4865
.4785
.4707
.4631
.4658
.4486
.4416
.4347
.4280
.4216
.4161
.4089
.4028
.3969
.3950
.3911
.3864
.3798
.3744
.3691
.3639
.3588
.3638
.3489
.3441
.3394
.3369
.3348
1 lb
brine
.09789
.09767
.09725
.09694
.09662
.09630
.09599
.09667
.09536
.09604
.09472
.09440
.09408
.09377
.09345
.09313
.09282
.09260
.09218
.09208
.09187
.09155
.09123
.09092
.09060
.09028
.08996
.08966
.08933
.08901
.08870
.08851
.08844
Hal
brine
.9283
.9270
.9257
.9244
.9231
.9218
.9204
.9191
.9178
.9164
.9151
.9137
.9123
.9109
.9096
.9082
.9087
.9063
.9039
.9034
.9025
.9010
.8996
.8981
.8966
.8951
.8936
.8921
.8906
.8891
.8876
.8867
.8863
BRINE
Lb br ne per
lib
salt
6.4113
6.3362
6.2632
6.1894
6.1203
5.0505
4.9860
4.9213
4.8567
4.7962
4.7348
4.6773
4.6211
4.6641
4.5106
4.4563
4.4053
4.3554
4.3048
4.2900
4.2571
4.2088
4.1632
4.1186
4.0733
4.0306
3.9872
3.9463
3.9063
3.8655
3.8270
3.8037
3.7879
lib
water
1.2267
1.2306
1.2346
1.2387
1.2427
1.2469
1.2509
1.2650
1.2693
1.2634
1.2677
1.2719
1.2761
1.2806
1.2849
1.2893
1.2937
1.2980
1.3026
1.304O
1.3070
1.3116
1.3161
1.3207
1.3254
1.3300
1.3348
1.3394
1.3441
1.3490
1.3537
1.3567
1.3687
Kal
water
10.216
10.249
10.282
10.316
10.350
10.384
10.418
10.453
10.487
10.622
10.658
10.593
10.629
10.666
10.701
10.737
10.774
10.811
10.848
10.860
10.885
10.923
10.961
10.999
11.038
11.076
11.116
11.155
11.194
11.234
11.274
11.298
11.308
Hal
brine
9.483
9.501
9.618
9.636
9.554
9.671
9.689
9.607
9.625
9.643
9.661
9.679
9.697
9.716
9.733
9.751
9.769
9.787
9.805
9.811
9.824
9.842
9.860
9.878
9.897
9.915
9.933
9.952
9.970
9.988
10.007
10.018
10.028
Gal br ne per
1 lb
salt
.5707
.5616
.5628
.5442
.5359
.6278
.5199
.5121
.6046
.4973
.4902
.4832
.4765
.4699
.4634
.4571
.45O9
.4449
.4391
.4373
.4333
.4277
.4222
.4169
.4116
.4085
.4015
.3966
.3917
.3870
.3824
.3799
.3778
1 lb
watec
.12935
.12953
.12971
.12989
.13008
.13026
.13045
.13064
.13083
.13103
.13122
.13141
.13161
.13181
.13201
.13221
.13242
.13263
.13284
.13290
.13305
.13327
.13348
.13370
.13392
.13414
.13436
.13459
.13482
.13505
.13628
.13541
.13548
Hal
water
1.0773
1.0788
1.0803
1.0818
1.0833
1.0850
1.0864
1.0880
1.0896
1.0912
1.0928
1.0945
1.0961
1.0978
1.0994
1.1011
1.1029
1.1046
1.1063
1.1069
1.1081
1.1099
1.1117
1.1135
1.1153
1.1172
1.1190
1.1209
1.1228
1.1247
1.1267
1.1278
1.1283
1 lb
brine
.10546
.10526
.10506
.10487
.10467
.10448
.10428
.10409
.10390
.10370
.10351
.10332
.10313
.10293
.10274
.10255
.10236
.10217
.10198
.10192
.10180
.10161
.10142
.10123
.10104
.10086
.10067
.10049
.10030
.10012
.09993
.09982
.09978
FREEZING POINT f
• C
•1-57
+52
+4.6
-1 4.0
+ 3.4
+ 2.8
+2.2
+ 1.6
+ 10
+ .4
-.4
-1.0
-1.6
-23
-3.0
-3.7
-4.4
-5.2
-58
-6.0-
-4.2
-1.1
+ 1.8
+ 48
+ 7.9
+ 11.1
+ 14.4
+ 18.0
+ 21 6
+ 255
+ 29.8
+ 32. 3t
+60.01
T
If
-14.6
-14.9
-15.2
-15.5
-15.9
-16.2
-16.5
-169
-17.2
-17.5
-18.0
-18.3
-18.7
-19.0
-19.4
-19.8
-20.2
-20.7
-21 0
-21.1'
-20.1
-184
-16.8
-15.1
-13.4
-11.6
-9.8
-7.8
-5.8
-3,6
-1.2
+ 0.2I
+ 15.561
•Eutectic point. For brines stronger than eutectic. the temperatures shown are the saturation
temperatures for sodium chloride dihydrate. Brines stronger than eutectic deposit excess
sodium chloride as dihydrate when cooled, and freeze at eutectic.
tTransition temperature from anhydrous salt to dihydrate.
tSaturatcd brine at 60° F (15.56° ('I
§Tempera(ure nl which freezing begins. Ice forms, brine concentrates, and freezing point lowers to eutectic
How to use the brine table
Freezing behavior of brines
These data, as tabulated on this and the op-
posite page, apply only to brines tested at
60° F. Preferably, all Salometer readings
should be made at 60" F. For other brine
temperatures the observed Salometer read-
ings must be converted before using them in
the table.
For all practical purposes the correction
amounts to approximately one degree Sa-
lometer less for each ten degrees below 60°
F, and one degree Salometer more for each
10 degrees above 60° F.
For more accurate conversion, subtract from
the observed Salometer reading the follow-
ing correction for each degree of tempera-
ture below 60° F; add for temperature be-
tween 60° and 100° F.
The data in the Complete Sterling Brine
Table at 60° F are based on properties of
chemically pure sodium chloride. For all
practical purposes they may be applied
without modification to solutions of salt
Appronimate correction In
Salometer degrees
Observed
Salometer
reading
Oto 10
11 to 20
21 to 30
31 to 40
41 to 50
51 to 60
61 to 70
71 to 80
81 to 90
91 to 100
Subtract
per decree
below 60* t
0.049
0.064
0.077
0.087
0.095
0.102
0.107
0.112
0.116
0.120
Add
per degree
above 60* F
0.060
0082
0.094
0.103
0.112
0.118
0.123
0.128
0.131
0.134
mined or manufactured by the International
Salt Company, Incorporated, Scranton, Pa.
The Research Department will at all times
be ready to answer problems concerning the
use of salt or salt brine. You are invited to
submit any question or problem concerning
salt or salt brine, wholly without obligation.
It is sometimes mistakenly assumed that the
stronger the brine, the lower the tempera-
ture at which freezing begins. This is true
only for brine strengths to and including
88.3° Salometer.
Pure water freezes at 32° F and if salt is
gradually added, ice first appears at succes-
sively lower temperatures. At a strength of
88.3° S, brine had its lowest freezing point,
—6.0° F, the eutectic temperature.
At the opposite extreme from pure water is
fully saturated brine of 100° S strength. Any
drop in temperature will deposit out a few
grains of salt, but the quantity will be very
small, because salt solubility changes but
little with temperature.
If a saturated brine is gradually diluted, salt
will appear at successively lower tempera-
tures; even at the slight dilution to 99.6* S,
the salt does not appear until a temperature
of 32.3° F is reached. Below this particular
strength and temperature, salt does not ap-
pear; but instead,sodium chloride dihydrate,
which looks and behaves much like ice. and
is usually mistaken for ice.
The temperature at which the dihydrate
first appears becomes successively lower as
the brine is diluted, until at 88.3° S strength,
the freezing temperature is —6.0° F. The
solid material which appears in 88.3° S brine
at —6.0° F is an intimate mixture of ice and
dihydrate, although ice first forms in weaker
brines, and dihydrate first forms in stronger
brines.
Note that 1° S change in strength causes less
than 1° F change in freezing point for brines
slightly under 88.3° S strength, but approxi-
mately 3* F change for brines slightly over
88.3° S. Therefore, if freezing might cause
trouble in refrigerating equipment, it is bet-
ter to operate with brines somewhat under
88.3° S, rather than over, since slight varia-
tions in strength have less effect on the brine
freezing point.
Courtesy of International Salt Company
-------
APPENDIX G
DEMONSTRATION TEST DATA SHEETS
RUNS 1A-174A
111
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST i\\)K DATA
TKST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume;, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
7. Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, 7. Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
1A Vl
3-20-72
2900
58°
4100
525
1895
100
63%
900
85%
2700
57°
3760
455
95%
2A
3-21-72
2700
57°
3760'
530
1920
100
66%
850
85%
2500
56°
3420
450
95%
3A
3-23-72
2500
57° J
3480
555
1825
100
68%
750
83%
2500
56°
3420
455
95%
1A, 2A, & 3A
900
329C>^-**^
^-^•^3395
740
88.9 s/'
~sS$9.9
?2+* 94.2
4A
3-24-72
3000
58°
4250
525
1805
100
61%
900
86%
2700
i
57°
3760
410
95%
REMARKS: The average dosages for runs #1A. 2A. 3A and 4A are; Soda ash 85%. hvdrated lime 657.
with the average total hardness -tn
Kft.no ~f /./•Q
purity level of 95%j
112
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS: For these teat runs the average
5A
3-27-72
2700
56°
3700
525
1745
100
687.
800
86%
2700
56°
3700
395
95%
6A
3-28-72
2700
57°
3760
535
1935
100
66%
850
85%
2700
560
3700
380
95%
4A, 5A, & 6A
900
3590^. "
^->*l630
550 1^-^*~
^•*^510
89.3
93.3^-^*^
^^-^94.2
7A
3-30-72
3000
58°
4250
525
1925
100
63%
950
86%
2700
58°
3830
400
95%
8A
3-31-72
2700
58°
3840
550
1790
100
64%
800
86%
2700
i
57°
3760
425
957.
dosages of soda aah is 867. and for hvdrated lime is
65%. The average residual hardness of the reclaimed brine is 400 gpg with a corresponding
purity level of 95%.
113
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
*
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
9A
4-3-72
2700
58°
3840
525
2035
100
67%
900
87%
2500
57°
3480
410
95%
7A, 8A, & 9A
900
3355^^--
^- — 3450
515_^-"-""^
^-^420
89.3
^^^r
10A
4-4-72
3000
57°
4180
525
1815
100
62%
900
85%
2700
56°
3700
425
95%
11A
4-6-72
2700
57°
3760
555
1845
100
64%
850
87%
2700
56°
3680
380
95%
12A
4-7-72
2700
57°
3760
530
1830
100
67%
800
83%
2500
i
56°
3420
395
95%
10A,11A,12;
900
3300^^-*^
^•-^3280
j^-^r
89.3
j^
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7.
Volume
Solubles
ISA
4-10-72
3000
56°
4100
520
1800
100
62%
900
86%
2700
56°
3700
405
95%
i
14A
4-11-72
2700
57°
3760
545
1835
100
65%
800
83%
2700
56°
3700
435
95%
15A
4-13-72
2700
56°
3700
535
1825
100
66%
800
84%
2500
55°
3350
395
95%
13A,14A,15A
900
3j^^T
610 ^—-^
_^--^605
89.3
94. 7_^-^*^"
^-^94.5
16A
4rJ.4-72
3000
57°
4150
520
1780
100
62%
900
877.
2700
i
56°
3700
435
95%
REMARKS: The average doaagog nf snAa ash and hydrafpd Hmp for thesft dftmnnsfraMnn rims arp
85% and 64% respectively. The average residual hardness i-n the reclaimed brine is 423 gpg with
the corresponding purity level of 95%.
115
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RTTN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
7, Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
17A
4-17-72
2700
56°
3700
550
1850
100
65%
800
83%
2700
55°
3620
445
95%
18A
4-18-72
2700
57°
3760
525
1835
100
67%
800
84%
2500
56°
3420
400
95%
16A,17A,18A
900
^-373^1
755 ^^"•"~
^^680
89.3
9J^
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, "Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
58°
3550
435
95%
19A.20A.21A
2030
83C
760
89.3
93.1
93.7
3760
445
3700
400
95%
21A
4-24-72
2700
59°
3920
525
1865
100
677.
800
83%
2500
22A
4-26-72
3000
58°
4250
535
1865
100
60%
900
83%
2700
23A
4-27-72
2700
57°
3760
555
1865
100
64%
850
86%
2700
24A
4-28-72
2700
56°
3700
540
1910
100
65%
850
85%
2500
385
22A,23A.24.i
90Q
3375
640
89.3
94.5
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime for these demonstration runs are
84% and 647. respectively. The average resi,dual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 416 gpg.
117
-------
BHTKF. RECLAMATION TKST RUN DATA
TKST in IN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRJNE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salomcter
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
25A
5-1-72
3000
56°
4100
530
1810
100
61%
900
85%
2700
55°
3620
410
95%
26A
5-2-72
2700
57°
3780
525
1875
100
67%
850
87%
2700
56°
3700
380
95%
27A
5-3-72
2700
58°
3840
510
1870
100
68%
800
83%
2500
57°
3480
405
95%
25A.26A.27A
900
™2^^
^^
89.3
5^
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRT.NE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, "Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
7. Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, 7. Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
i
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles,' Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7.
Volume
Solubles
The average dosages of soda
29A
5/8/72
2700
57°
3760
555
1885
100
657.
850
857.
2700
56°
3680
430
957.
30A
5/9/72
2700
56°
3680
535
1965
100
667.
850
837.
2500
55°
3350
410
957.
28A,29A,30A
900
3335^- —
^ -"3825
715^--^
.^---"215
89.3
-— -^98.2
31A
5/10/72
3000
57°
4180
515
1825
100
627.
900
857.
2700
56°
3680
435
957.
32A
5/11/72
2700
56°
3680
550
1870
100
647.
800
827.
2700
55°
3620
445
957.
ash and hydrated lime for these demonstration runs
are 847. and 647. respectively. The average residual hardness in the reclaimed
brine is 430 gpg with a purity level of 957..
119
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical.
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/ Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7.
Volume
Solubles
33A
5/15/72
2700
57°
3760
535
1855
100
66%
800
83%
2500
56°
3420
415
95%
31A,32A,33A
900
^^^-*S590
^2*gf
89.3
^--•-•^•SsTs
)
REMARKS:
120
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
The average dosages of soda
34A
5/16/72
3000
56°
4100
520
1750
100
62%
900
87%
2700
55°
3620
405
95%
35A
5/17/72
2700
56°
3680'
550
1750
100
63%
800
86%
2700
55°
3620
. 395
95%
36A
5/18/72
2700
58°
3830
570
1950
100
62%
900
88%
2500
57°
3480
400
95%
34A,35A,36A
900
3415^*-*"
^- 3620
•813^^--^
„ — -"610
89.3
•—-***94T8
37A
5/22/72
2900
57°
4050
520
1780
100
64%
900
89%
2700
0
56
3660
415
95%
ash and hydrated lime are 87.5% and 63% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 405 gpg.
121
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime for these demonbtration runs
are 85% and 66% respectively. The average residual hardness in the reclaimed
brine is 440 gpg.
38A
5/23/72
2700
58°
3840
540
1880
100
657.
850
86%
2700
57°
3760
440
95%
39A
5/24/72
2700
57°
3760
530
1800
100
66%
800
84%
2500
56°
3420
445
95%
37A,38A,39A
900
3095^-*"
^ *3530
865^-
<^-*""430
89.3
92Jj^
^ "96.3
40A
5/25/72
2900
58°
4120
515
1765
100
64%
850
85%
2700
57°
3780
435
95%
41A
5/30/72
2700
57°
3780
525
1835
100
68%
800
84%
2700
56°
3680
435
95%
122
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
The average dosage of soda
42A
5/31/72
2700
56°
3700
530
1740
100
677=
800
87%
2500
55°
3450
390
95%
40A,41A,42A
900
4275^-^-
.^•-•"'4350
495^—-^
"420
89.3
'~96.3
43A
6/1/72
2900
57°
4050
510
1820
100
65%
900
88%
2700
56°
3700
410
95%
44A
6/4/72
2700
58°
3840
530
1830
100
67%
800
84%
2700
57°
3760
445
95%
45A
6/5/72
2700 .
57°
3760
540
1780
100
65%
800
87%
2500
56°
3420
420
95%
43A,44A,45
900
434O^-^~
^^"4495
710^--"
^*x**"5
89.1
93.^ —
^-*^95.2
ash and hydrated lime for these demonstration runs
are 86.5% and 66% respectively. The average residual hardness in the reclaimed
brine is 415 gpg. .
123
-------
BRINK KKCLAMATTON TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
46A
6/6/72
2900
58°
4100
515
1755
100
64%
850
867.
2700
57°
3760
425
95%
47A
6/7/72
2700
56°
3700
525
1865
100
en
800
83%
2700
55°
3620
430
95%
48A
6/8/72
2700
57°
3760
550
1810
100
64%
800
84%
2500
56°
3420
450
95%
46A,47A,48A
900
2415^-»»-^
.^--—2520
825.- — "
,^--**520
89.1
92.8^-—
— - — 93.7
49A
6/12/72
2900
58°
4100
525
1865
100
63%
900
87%
2700
i
57°
3770
430
95%
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 64.5% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 435 gpg.
124
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical.
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7,
Volume
Solubles
The average dosages of soda
50A
6/13/72
2700
56°
3700
535
1795
100
66%
800
84%
2700
55°
3620
440
95%
I
51A
6/14/72
2700
56°
3700
540
1760
100
65%
800
86%
2500
55°
3350
425
95%
49A,50A,51A
900
^^-^2675
700^^--^"
^— **565
89.1
93.9^-- —
^-*- — 95.1
ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 65.57. respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 433 gpg.
125
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
52A
6/16/72
2900
o
57
4050
520
1900
100
64%
900
85%
2700
56°
3700
445
95%
53A
6/19/72
2700
57°
3760-
545
1835
100
657.
800
83%
2700
56°
3700
. . 455
94.5%
54A
6/20/72
2700
58°
3840
530
1810
100
67%
800
85%
2500
57°
3480
410
95%
52A,53A,54A
900
2825.^-- —
^^^"2950
955^--"
89.1
91.8^— •"
.^- 92.8
55A
6/21/72
2900
56°
3960
520
1760
100
64%
850
86%
2700
o
55
3600
435
95%
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 65% respectively
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 435 gpg.
126
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST Rl^f DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
7, Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
56A
6/22/72
2700
57°
3760
540
1820
100
667.
800
84%
2700
56°
3700
440
957.
57A
6/26/72
2700
57°
3760
550
1840
100
64%
800
83%
2500
56°
3420
460
947.
55A,56A,57A
900
234JU— -"
* — ' 2395
^^405
89.1
96tfl^--~
, **96.5
58A
6/27/72
2900
58°
4080
525
1895
100
63%
900
86%
2700
57°
3760
445
957.
59A
6/28/72
2700
58°
3830"
530
1800
100
677.
800
84%
2700
57°
3760
430
95%
REMARKS- The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 847. and 65% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 445 gpg.
127
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
60A
6/29/72
2700
57°
3760
545
1905
100
65%
850
85%
2500
56°
3420
420
95%
58A,59A,60A
900
_^- — T720
lOSO^—-"
^^-"loeo
89.1
90.7^ — '
^ "90.7
61A
7/3/72
2900
58°
4120
515
1765
100
64%
850
85%
2700
57°
3780
435
95%
62A
7/5/72
2700
57°
3780
525
1835
100
68%
800
84%
2700
56°
3680
435
95%
63A
lib/12
2700 .
56°
3700
530
1740
100
67%
800
87%
2500
i
55°
3350
390
95%
61A,62A,63/
900
354CL^»'-'
,^>*1715
oau^**""
89.1
94.L^--'
,^-''95.6
REMARKS:
. The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 66% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 420 gpg.
128
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
64A
7/7/72
2900
57°
4050
510
1820
100
65%
900
88%
2700
56°
3700
410
95%
65A
7/10/72
2700
56°
3700
540
1860
100
66%
850
87%
2700
55°
3620
390
95%
66A
7/11/72
2700
56°
3700
540
1820
100
66%
800
84%
2500
55°
3350
435
95%
54A,65A,66A
900
3825-(--*'
^-^5825
405,^--^
89.1
-^"•^96.5
67A
7/12/72
2900
57°
4050
525
1745
100
63%
850
86%
2700
56°
3700
410
95%
REMARKS: The average dosage of soda ash and hydratad lime are 86% and 65% respectively.
The residual hardness on the reclaimed brine is 410 gpg.
129
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, "Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
7. Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, 7. Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7.
Volume
Solubles
68A
7/13/72
2700
55
3620
540
1860
100
667.
850
88%
2700
54
3340
350
95.57.
REMARKS:
130
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
69A
7/17/72
2700
56°
3660
540
1390
100
66%
700
86%
2500
55°
3360
380
96%
67A,68A,69A
900
341Q^--~
^,^-^615
820^^^"
^- — 615
89.1
^* — 94.6
70A
7/18/72
2900
53°
3760
510
1970
100
65%
900
84%
2700
55°
3620
265
97%
71A
7/19/72
2700
56°
3660
525
1695
100
67%
800
88%
2700
55°
3620
365
96%
72A
7/20/72
2700
55°
3620
510
1460
100
65%
800
89%
2500
54°
3280
395
95%
70A.7LA.72A
900
3050^^
,^^^3105
865^^^
<^-*""810
89.1
92.£.
,^-x"92.7
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical.
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS- The averase dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 87%and 66% respectively. The
average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 350 gpg with a purity level
of 96%.
131
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRTNE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash
73A
7/24/72
2900
56°
4000
465
1685
100
70%
800
85%
2700
55°
3600
390
95%
,
74A
7/25/72
2700
58°
3840
525
1805
100
67%
800
84%
2700
57°
3760
405
95%
75A
7/26/72
2700
57°
3760
555
1745
100
64%
800
86%
2500
56°
3450
395
95%
73A,74A,75A
900
31W^-
^ — 3465
940 "
^-^**585
89.1
9i^**^^"
76A
7/27/72
2900
56°
3960
480
1740
100
68%
800
83%
2700
55°
3620
405
95%
(
and hydrated lime are 85% and 67% .respectively. The
average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 400 gpg with a purity.level
of 95%.
132
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
77A
7/31/72
2700
57°
3760
555
1775
100
64%
800
84%
2700
56°
3700
465
95%
78A
8/1/72
2700
o
56
3700
530
1770
100
66%
800
86%
2500
55°
3340
405
95%
76A,77A,78A
900
.^-^2985
970^-^"
,- 795
89.1
9U5^--*
^^*93.0
79A
8/2/72
2900.
0
58
4100
525
1875
100
63%
900
83%
2700
57°
3760
475
94%
80A
8/3/72
2700
56°
3700
535
1735
100
66%
800
87%
2700
1
55°
3620
375
96%
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 65% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 430 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
133
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST PvUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical.
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF HASTE %
Volume
Solubles
81A
8/7/72
2700
60°
3970
250
2340
50
71%
900
86%
2500
57°
3480
310
96%
79A,80A,81A
900
3390^.
^--•-"3515
lOlO^---"
^. "§85
89.1
si .4^ «••••"
82A
8/8/72
2900
61°
4350
390
2280
75
64%
1000
86%
2700
59°
3900
425
95%
83A
8/9/72
2700
53°
3480
380
2090
75
69%
800
83%
2700
52°
3500
420
95%
84A
8/10/72
2700 .
56°
3680
410
2090
100
69%
900
85%
2500
55°
3360
410
95%
82A,83A,84;
900
347>^^
-x****'^720
855^—^
^x^^eos
89.1
^^
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 68% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 390 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
134
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
85A
8/14/72
2900
57°
4100
500
1825
100
66%
850
84%
2700
o
56
3680
415
95%
86A
8/15/72
2700
58°
3820
540
1735
100
65%
800
86%
2700
57°
3760
400
95%
REMARKS• The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 66% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 410 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
135
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST WIN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
7. Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
87A
8/16/72
2700
57°
3760
535
1860
100
66%
850
87%
2500
56°
3520
385
95%
85A,86A,87A
900
3230^--"
^-""SSOO
iopj^--~
-^-*"'"930
89.1
91.^*^
^~^W.O
88A
8/17/72
2900
56°
3960
510
1830
100
65%
900
88%
2700
55°
3620
390
95%
89A
8/21/72
2700
57°
3760
510
1860
100
69%
850
88%
2700
56°
3690
375
96%
88A,89A,90A
900
3230^^-^
^-^•^3375
• 640^-' —
,^-—^95
89.1
94.5^-—^
^^$5.7
90A
8/22/72
2700
59°
3920
525
1895
100
67%
850
86%
2500
58°
3550
390
95%
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 87.0% and 67.0% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 385gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
136
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
91A
8/23/72
2900
56°
3960
490
1910
100
67%
900
86%
2700
55°
3620
405
95%
92A
8/24/72
2700
57°
3760
550
1790
100
63%
800
84%
2700
56°
3690
435
95%
91A,92A,93A
900
2190^-—
^. — -"2295
690 -~
^- — 585
89.1
94.Q^"-~
,^-— **94. 9
93A
8/28/72
2700
57°
3760
520
1815
100
68%
800
83%
2500
56°
3420
430
95%
94A
8/29/72
2900 .
58°
4100
470
1890
100
69%
800
86%
2700
57°
3760
380
95%
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 66% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 410 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
137
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7,
Volume
Solubles
95A
8/30/72
2700
57°
3760
535
1845
100
66%
850
88%
2700
56°
3690
395
95%
96A
8/31/72
2700
57°
3760
515
1880
100
68%
850
87%
2500
56°
3420
370
95%
94A.95A.96A
900
IjWU-*"^
^***2085
710 -"
^~ — 615
89.1
^*- — '"9^.7
97A
9/5/72
2900
58°
4100
470
1990
100
69%
900
83%
2700
57°
3760
400
95%
98A
9/6/72
2700
56°
3690
525
2005
100
67%
900
87%
2700
55°
3620
365
94%
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 67.5% -respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 385 gpg with a purity level
of 95%.
138
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
7. Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7.
Volume
Solubles
99A
9/7/72
2700
58°
3830
540
1920
100
667.
850
857.
2500
57°
3490
405
95%
97A,98A,99A
900
3535^^-^
^^^3655
863^
^•^-*745
89.1
92.£^—--~
^^-^93. 6
100A
9/8/72
2900
58°
4100
510
1905
100
65%
900
857.
2700
57°
3760
415
957.
101A
9/11/72
2700
58°
3800
515
1940
100
687.
850
857.
2700
57°
3760
390
957.
102A
9/12/72
2700
57°
3760
530
1910
100
677.
850
867.
2500
56°
3420
395
957.
100A,
101A, 102A
900
340O,x^1"
^-"3590
920^»p-
^-""730
89.1
,^^^3.7
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 857. and 66.57. respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 400 gpg with the purity
level of 957..
139
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
103A
9/13/72
2900
58°
4100
490
1885
100
67%
900
86%
2700
57°
3760
390
95%
104A
9/14/72
2700
59°
3940 .
520
1870
100
687.
800
83%
2700
58°
3830
425
95%
i
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 67.5% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 407 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
140
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
105A
9/18/72
2700
o
57
3760
550
1930
100
647.
900
897.
2500
55°
3350
340
957o
103A,
104A, 105A
900
4605^-"
^ ^775
795^-
^---"625
89.1
gs.^^---1
^-^**^4.7
106A
9/19/72
2900
59°
4190
590
2010
150
64%
1000
887.
2700
57°
3760
535
94%
107A
9/20/72
2700
58°
3840
520
2240
100
687.
1000
897.
2700
57°
3760
175
987.
108A
9/21/72
2700
57°
3760
460
2160
100
75%
900
85%
2500
i
0
55
3350
230
97%
106A,
107A, 108A
900
3980 •"
^-^4130
870. '
^**-"720
89.1
92.6^"
^-**53.8
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 88% and 68% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 320 gps with a purity
level of 96%.
141
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, "Saloroeter
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7.
Volume
Solubles
109A
9/25/72
2900
58°
4100
360
2310
75
697.
1000
85%
2700
57°
3760
380
95%
110A
9/26/72
2700
57°
3760-
530
2035
100
66%
900
87%
2700
56°
3680
385
95%
111A
9/27/72
2700
57°
3760
475
1970
75
63%
800
83%
2500
56°
3420
440
95%
109A,
110A, 111A
900
broken earn]
bottle
89.1
112A
9/28/72
2900
59°
4250
510
1920
100
65%
900
84%
2700
58°
3840
415
95%
>le
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85.0% and 66% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 405 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
142
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7,
Volume
Solubles
113A
10/2/72
2700
58°
3840
540
1870
100
65%
850
877.
2700
57°
3760
405
95%
114A
10/3/72
2700
56°
3690
525
1900
100
67%
850
87%
25QO
o
55
3350
375
95%
112A,
113A, 114A
900
-—-^2940
104>- '
840
89.1
91.2^---"
_^- — 92.5
115A
10/4/72
2900
58°
4100
510
1885
100
64%
900
86%
2700
57°
3760
410
95%
116A
10/5/72
2700
57°
3760
530
1825
100
66%
800
84%
2700
56°
3690
440
95%
REMARKS:
143
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTK BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, 7, Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
The average dosages of soda
117A
10/9/72
2700
58°
3830
535
1870
100
667.
850
877.
2500
57°
3480
390
957.
115A,
116A, 117A
900
3035>--—
^^"^3165
745^-^
^^-""615
89.1
93Ji^-'^
^--^94.7
118A
10/10/72
2900
57°
4100
500
1925
100
66%
900
857.
2700
56°
3680
410
95%
119A
10/11/72
2700
58°
3830
540
1850
100
65%
850
88%
2700
57°
3760
385
95%
120A
10/12/72
2700
59°
3910
540
1900
100
667.
850
85%
2500
58°
3550
420
95%
118A,
119A, 120A
900
3325^^
^^-^500
855^^"
^-^*680
89.1
, — "^Cs
ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 66% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 400 gpg with a purity level
of 95%.
144
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
REMARKS:
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, 7. Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
The average dosages of soda
121A
10/17/72
2900
o
57
4050
510
1910
100
647.
900
857.
2700
56°
3680
430
95%
122A
10/18/72
2700
57°
3760'
545
1855
100
657.
850
87%
2700
56°
3680
405
957.
123A
10/19/72
2700
56°
3680
530
1800
100
677.
800
867.
2500
55°
3350
435
957.
121A,
122A, 123A
900
3425^-*-*'
— --"3515
805-^---*'
89.1
93.$3.8
124A
10/20/72
2900
57°
4050
525
2100
100
63%
1000
877.
2700
56°
3690
415
957.
ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 65% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 420 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
145
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
125A
10723/72
2700
57°
3760
520
1870
100
687.
850
87%
2700
o
56
3690
395
95%
126A
10/24/72
2700
56°
3690
545
1890
100
64%
850
85%
2500
55°
3350
425
95%
124A,
125A.126A
900
se&i-*--^
^-*"*3800
-^-"•""475
89.1
94.7^^-
,^-**l5.9
127A
10/25/72
2900
59°
4200
500
1910
100
65%
900
85%
2700
o
58
3820
420
95%
128A
10/26/72
2700
57°
3760
525
1825
100
67%
800
84%
2700
0
56
3690
400
95%
REMARKS:
TEST }{\m NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 85% and 66% respectively.
The residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 410 gpg with a purity level
of 95%.
146
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, oSalometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
129A
10/30/72
2700
58°
3840
550
1820
100
64%
850
88%
2500
57°
3480
405
95%
127A,
128A.129A
900
287JL.*--*"
^---1065
1090^^"
^^-"^95
89.1
90.8^^^-
^--^92.4
130A
10/31/72
2900
58°
4100
495
1910
100
66%
900
86%
2700
58°
3760
400
95%
131A
11/1/72
2700
56°
3690
535
1870
100
66%
850
87%
2700
55°
3620
385
95%
132A
11/2/72
2700
57°
3760
530
1900
100
66%
850
86%
2500
56°
3420
390
95%
130A,
131A.132A
900
ITSO^-"
^^•^1880
970^--'
,^-^820
89.1
91.$^'
_^-""*92.9
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 87% and 65.5% respectively.
The residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is 395 gpg with a purity level
of 95%.
147
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TKST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
133A
11/6/72
2900
570
4050
495
1860
100
667.
900
88%
2700
56°
3690
375
95%
134A
11/7/72
2700
590
3900
545
1785
100
65%
800
86%
2700
58°
3840
395
95%
135A
11/8/72
2700
570
3760
540
1870
100
65%
850
87%
2500
56°
3420
390
95%
133A,
134A, 135A
900
3275^-^
--••'•'"3270
535^-'*''
^ — *"540
89.1
95.^- —
-- — "95.3
136A
11/9/72
2900
580
4100
510
1910
100
65%
900
85%
2700
57°
3760
415
95%
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86.5% and 65% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine Is 395 gpg with the purity
level of 95%.
148
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydr'ated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
i
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
137A
11/13/72
2700
56°
3690
540
1840
100
65%
850
88%
2700
55°
3560
390
95%
1
: ~
138A
11/15/72
2700
57°
3760
550
1890
100
64%
850
85%
2500
56°
3420
405
95%
136A,
137A, 138A
900
360>-^^
,--— **3595
635^--"^
^^^645
89.1
94-5^-"
^*-*^94.4
1
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86.57. and 64.5% respectively.
The average residual hardness is 397 gpg with a purity level of 95%.
149
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TF.ST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE 7,
Volume
Solubles
139A
11/16/72
2900
56°
3960
500
1910
100
70%
900
867.
2700
55°
3620
345
96%
140A
11/17/72
2700
o
58
3830
535
1900
100
66%
850
86%
2700
57°
3760
395
95%
-
141A
11/20/72
2700
o
58
3830
545
1875
100
65%
850
86%
2500
57°
3490
400
95%
141A,
139A, 140A
900
298^^'^'
-^-"3230
->^*680
89.1
-"^94.1
142A
11/21/72
2900
57°
4050
505
1905
100
65%
900
86%
2700
56°
3690
410
95%
REMARKS: The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 66% respectively.
The average residual hardness on the reclaimed brine is 390 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
150
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
143A
11/22/72
2700
58°
3840
550
1860
100
647.
850
877.
2700
o
57
3760
415
95%
144A
11/27/72
2700
56°
3690
540
1910
100
65%
850
857.
2500
55°
3350
425
957.
142A,
143A, 144A
900
33m*"--
^--"-3650
.—--625
89.1
92.2^, — *
^-*-*94.6
145A
11/28/72
2900
57°
4050
505
1930
100
657.
900
857.
2700
56°
3690
420
957.
146A
11/30/72
2700
o
57
3760
530
1885
100
67%
850
86%
2700
0
56
3690
395
95%
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 657. respectively.
The average residual hardness on the reclaimed brine is 415 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
151
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical.
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, GalIons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibe.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
147A
12/1/72
2700
58°
3830
545
1870
100
65%
850
86%
2500
57°
3480
410
95%
145A,
146, 147A
900
^---jJTOS
1100^-^"
^-^"liOS
89.1
90.6^- — '
--^-*T3.1
148A
12/4/72
2900
57°
4050
480
1890
100
69%
900
86%
2700
56°
3690
375
95%
149A
12/5/72
2700
56°
3690
525
1910
100
67%
850
86%
2700
55°
3620
390
95%
150A
12/6/72
2700 .
58°
3830
530
1855
100
66%
850
88%
2500
i
57°
3480
405
95%
USA,
149A,150A
900
3055x-^
^^3390
995^-*"'
.^^"660
89.1
91.4^^'
^*^k.3
REMARKS: T^e average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86.5% and 67% respectively.
The average total hardness in the reclaimed brine is 395 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
152
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salotneter
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
15 1A
12/7/72
2900
58°
4120
510
1875
100
657.
900
877o
2700
57°
3760
390
957.
152A
12/11/72
2700
56°
3690
540
1870
100
66%
850
87%
2700
55°
3600
380
95%
153A
12/12/72
2700
56°
3690
525
1900
100
67%
850
86%
2500
o
55
3350
390
95%
151A,
152A, 153A
900
3080,^*--'
^-"3350
830^-^"
89.1
9ii^->*""""P
154A
12/13/72
2900
58°
4150
490
1865
100
67%
900
87%
2700
57°
3760
375
95%
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 877. and 66% respectively.
The average total hardness in the reclaimed brine is 385 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
153
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
155A
12/14/72
2700
57°
3760
520
1910
100
68%
850
86%
2700
56°
3690
400
95%
15 6 A
12/19/72
2700
55°
3620
555
1955
100
64%
900
88%
25QO
54°
3320
395
95%
154A,
155A,156A
900
296>---'"'
— •--"''3170
860,^^^'
r^--*655
't'j'
89.1
92J^--^
-*--*"94.4
157A
12/20/72
2900
56°
3960
530
1890
100
63%
900
85%
2700
o
55
3620
435
95%
158A
12/21/72
2700
56°
3690
525
1955
100
67%
850
84%
2700
i
55°
3620
410
95%
i
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
REMARKS: Tb-e average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 65.5% respectively
The residual total hardness in the reclaimed brine is 410 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
154
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical.
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
15 9A
12/22/72
2700
55°
3620
535
2040
100
66%
900
86%
2500
54°
3280
405
95%
157A,
158A,159A
900
2660,--"
^>>"2760
760^-"
^^^•^60
89.1
93 .Z^-"
^x-^4.1
160A
12/26/72
2900
u
51
3580
480
1980
100
69%
950
88%
2700
51°
3340
385
95%
161A
12/29/72
2700
51°
3340
510
1975
100
69%
900
89%
2700
51°
3340
375
95%
162A
1/2/73
2700 •
o
55
3620
550
2015
100
64%
900
86%
2500
54°
3280
415
95%
160A,
161A.162A
900
4175^""
^xx-"4700
955^*"
-xx-*"430
89.1
Sl.O^*'*'
^^^5.9
REMARKS:
155
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
163A
1/2/73
2900
53°
3740
475
2105
100
69%
1000
88%
2700
52°
3400
360
96%
164A
1/4/73
2700
56°
3690
520
1985
100
68%
900
88%
2700
55°
3620
375
95%
165A
1/5/73
2700
56°
3690
555
1990
100
64%
900
86%
2500
55°
3350
410
95%
163A,
164A,165A
900
3330
990
89.1
91.1
166A
1/8/73
2900
56°
3960
510
1910
100
64%
900
85%
2700
55°
3620
435
95%
REMARKS: The average dosage of soda ash and hydrated lime are 87% and 66% respectively.
The average residual hardness in the reclaimed brine is -395 gpg with a purity
level of 95%.
156
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs,
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
167A
1/9/73
2700
o
55
3620
535
1885
100
66%
850
86%
2700
0
54
3540
410
95%
i
168A
1/10/73
2700
56°
3690
540
1860
100
66%
850
88%
2500
o
55
3350
385
95%
166A,
167A.168A
900
32Q5>-^*"
^---**3610
^*-^350
89.1
^^-i*>96.9
169A
1/11/73
2900
o
55
3880
490
1925
100
67%
900
85%
2700
o
54
3540
390
95%
170A
1/15/73
2700
o
55
3610
515
1810
100
69%
800
84%
2700
i
o
54
3540
430
95%
REMARKS:
The average dosages of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 67% respectively.
The average residual total hardness is 405 gpg in the reclaimed brine and a
i —' __———^———
purity level of 95%.
157
-------
BRINE RECLAMATION TEST RUN DATA
TEST RUN NUMBER
DATE
UNTREATED WASTE BRINE
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Magnesium Hardness, gpg
Calcium Hardness, gpg
CHEMICALS ADDED
Hydrated Lime, Ibs.
% Theoretical
Soda Ash, Ibs.
% Theoretical
RECLAIMED BRINB
Volume, Gallons
Strength, °Salometer
Solubles, Total Ibs.
Total Hardness, gpg
Purity, % Na/Solubles
WASTE
Cumulated for Test numbers
Volume, Gallons
Insolubles, Ibs.
Solubles, Ibs.
REDUCTION OF WASTE %
Volume
Solubles
171A
1/17/73 .
2700
57°
3760
530
1870
100
67%
850
87%
2500
56°
3420
390
95%
169A,
170A.171A
900
89.1
172A
1/18/73
2900
54°
3800
500
1820
100
66%
900
89%
2700
53°
3490
375
95%
173A
1/19/73
2700
55°
3610
535
1805
100
66%
800
84%
2700
54°
3540
415
95%
174A
1/22/73
2700
57°
3760
510
1795
100
67%
800
85%
2500
56°
3420
405
95%
172A,
173A.174A
900
89.1
REMARKS:
The average dosage of soda ash and hydrated lime are 86% and 66.5% respectively.
The average residual total hardness in the reclaimed brine is 395.gpg with a
purity level of 95%.
158
«O.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1974 546-317/331 1-3
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
1. Report No.
4. Title
INDUSTRIAL WATER SOFTENER WASTE BRINE RECLAMATION
2.
3. Accession No.
w
7. Author(s)
Burton, Jim and Kreusch, Ed
9. Organization
Culligan International Company
Northbrook, Illinois 60062
12. Sponsoring Organization Environmental Protection Agency
is. Supplementary Notes Office of Research and Development
Environmental Protection Agency report number,
EPA-660/2-74-007, February 1974.
5. Report Date
6.
8. Performing Organization
Report No.
W. Project No.
12120 GLE
11. Contract/Grant No.
12120 GLE
13. Type of Report and
Period Covered
16. Abstract
There are two alternatives for discharge of water softener regenerant brines to
receiving streams: (l) truck to approved dumping site; (2) reclaim for reuse.
Brine reuse has been studied at a central regeneration facility for portable
water softeners. Reclamation used modified lime-soda softening for the waste
brine to produce an acceptable regenerant brine. Regenerant wastes were reduced
by 89% to produce an environmentally acceptable sludge.
The process is feasible technically, marginal economically. The added costs for
lime and soda ash are less than is the value of salt and water reclaimed by their
use. That is, the process is cheaper chemically; however, equipment and labor
costs negate this savings. Depreciation and operating costs were high at the
test location: total costs favor trucking wastes to. an approved dumping site.
Capital and operating costs may be reduced under annew project following the
report's recommendations.
17a. Descriptors
*water softening, *chemical precipitation, *brines, hardness (water), water
pollution treatment lime.
17b. Identifiers
*regenerant reuse, lime soda softening, regenerant disposal.
17c. COWRR Field & Group 05D, 05E, 05B
18. Availability
19. Security Class.
(Report)
20. Security Class.
(Page)
21. No. of
Pages
22. Price
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THEINTERIOR
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20240
Abstractor Ed Kreusch
^institution Culligan International Company
WRSIC 102 (REV. JUNE 1971)
SPO 913.261
------- |