East Meets West:

Treatment and Blending Considerations in Using

Carrizo-Wilcox Groundwater in Central Texas

By: Thomas E. Caponi, P.E.

Bury+Partners, Inc.
221 West Sixth Street, Suite 600
Austin, Texas 78701

INTRODUCTION

Many communities within Central Texas along the IH 35 corridor have experienced double digit
growth rates over the last 10 years, and this rate of growth is expected to continue within many
communities of the region. The ability of the region to sustain this growth is largely dependent
on our ability to provide adequate water supplies. The expansion of surface water supplies is
limited as these sources are largely developed and committed to serve existing demand. The
groundwater supplies within Central Texas, such as the Edward’s Aquifer, are used extensively
but water level decreases have resulted in limitations on water withdrawals imposed by
regulatory agencies.

CARRIZO-WILCOX AQUIFER OVERVIEW

The Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer has been identified as a potential groundwater source to serve
growing demands along the IH 35 corridor. The aquifer extends from the Rio Grande in
South Texas northeastward into Arkansas and Louisiana generally parallel to and east of IH 35
(see Figure 1). The aquifer is a hydrologically connected system consisting of the
Wilcox Group and the overlying Carrizo Formation of the Claiborne Group. The Carrizo Sand
and Wilcox Group outcrop out along a narrow band that parallels the Gulf Coast and dips
beneath the land surface toward the coast (see outcrop zone in Figure 1).
 Figure 1. Major Aquifers of Texas
Source: TWDB, 2010a

The aquifer is predominantly composed of sand locally interbedded with gravel, silt, clay, and
lignite deposited during the Tertiary Period. South of the Trinity River and north of the
Colorado River, the Wilcox Group is divided into three distinct formations: the Hooper,
Simsboro, and Calvert Bluff (see Figure 2). Of the three formations, the Simsboro typically
contains the most massive water-bearing sands. This division cannot be made south of the
Colorado River or north of the Trinity River due to the absence of the Simsboro as a distinct unit.
Aquifer thickness in the downdip portion ranges from less than 200 feet to more than 3,000 feet
(Ashworth, 1995).

Well yields are commonly 500 gallons per minute (gpm), and some may reach 3,000 gpm.
Yields greater than 500 gpm are produced from the Carrizo Sand in the southern or
Winter Garden area of the aquifer, and are also obtained from the Carrizo and Simsboro
formations in the central region (Ashworth, 1995).
Locally, the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer may have elevated levels of dissolved carbon dioxide, iron,
manganese, hydrogen sulfide and
methane with high iron content
common throughout much of the
northeastern part of the aquifer
(Ashworth, 1995). Groundwater
extracted from deeper downdip
portions of the aquifer may have
water temperatures exceeding 90° F.
However, total hardness levels
mostly fall within a range that would
generally classify the water as “soft”
water, with corresponding low levels
of dissolved solids and alkalinity.
While treatment techniques have
been available and practiced for
some time in addressing water
quality concerns with respect
to individual constituents found
in Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Figure 2. Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer and Cross-Section at
Leon County, Texas
groundwater, some treatment Source: TWDB, 2010b
considerations are often overlooked
especially when considering treatment appropriate to address all of the various constituents of
concern found in this groundwater.

The quality characteristics found in Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer groundwater are also in sharp
contrast to other more commonly used surface and groundwater supplies in Central Texas that
are generally high hardness and high alkalinity waters, whose quality characteristics are
principally derived from the limestone of the Texas Hill Country. The differences in water
quality and water chemistry between the Carrizo-Wilcox and Central Texas aquifers create
considerable challenges in the design and operation of water supply systems where both water
sources are blended or intermixed in the distribution system.

SOURCE WATER CHARACTERIZATION

In order to properly assess the need for groundwater treatment and any potential consequences of
blending groundwater with other supplies, accurate groundwater characterization data is
essential. Issues often overlooked in obtaining accurate groundwater characterization data
include:
• Purging of the well
• Field vs. laboratory parameters
• Sample collection procedures
A. Well Purging

Chemical characteristics of stagnant groundwater that has resided in the well bore
between pumping cycles may differ significantly from groundwater within the aquifer.
Therefore, this stagnant water must be removed from the well prior to field analyses and
sample collection to obtain a representative sample of in-situ groundwater.
The amount of water to be pumped before collection of water samples depends upon a
number of factors. There is no set number of well bore volumes to be pumped that fits all
situations. However, it is generally agreed that a minimum of three (3) well bore
volumes of water should be evacuated in addition to attaining the stabilization of pH,
temperature and electrical conductivity of the discharging water (Boghici, 2003). It is
recommended that at least three (3) readings for these parameters be taken at 3 to 5
minute intervals. These parameters are deemed to have stabilized when three successive
measurements are within the following ranges:
• pH: ±0.1 pH units
• Temperature: ±3%
• Specific Conductance: ±3%
Detailed well purging procedures are provided in the Texas Water Development Board’s
Field Manual for Groundwater Sampling (Boghici, 2003) and other standard groundwater
texts.

B. Field Parameters

Several analyses must be made in the field at the time of sampling (Boghici, 2003).
These parameters include the following:
• pH
• Temperature
• Specific conductance
• Alkalinity
• Dissolved gases (carbon dioxide, oxygen and hydrogen sulfide)

Measurements of pH, temperature, and specific conductance are used to establish that the
well has stabilized before sampling may begin. Other parameters, such as oxidation
reduction potential, alkalinity, and dissolved gases, are measured at the time of sampling
because chemical reactions may occur during the holding time. These reactions change
the chemical composition of the water, thus making any laboratory analysis at a later time
inaccurate. Since carbon dioxide is part of the carbonate system, an accurate
measurement of pH and alkalinity in the field can be used to estimate the dissolved
carbon dioxide concentration in the water (Sawyer and McCarty, 1978, pg 373).
 C. Sample Collection Procedures

It is critical that the collection of samples from the well for field parameter analysis be
conducted to minimize chemical changes to the sample from oxidation and release of
dissolved gases. Therefore, sampling and
analytical techniques should be employed that
minimize sample aeration and that can conduct
analyses rapidly. Figure 3 illustrates a simple
method of sample collection that minimizes
sample aeration and dissolved gas release. A
short length of hose is connected to the sample
tap on the well that directs the sample to a
narrow-mouth container. A low rate of flow
can be maintained during sample analysis for
pH, temperature, and specific conductance,
while fixed volume samples are required where
reagents are added.
Figure 3. Sample collection technique for
measurement of field parameters

WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS

Table 1 provides data from Carrizo-Wilcox wells in Gonzales and Guadalupe County, along
with analyses of surface water from the Guadalupe River and groundwater from the
Edward’s Aquifer. These data tend to illustrate the contrast between Carrizo-Wilcox
groundwater and surface water and groundwater supplies commonly used in Central Texas.
While groundwater quality of the Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer varies locally and across the aquifer
and these data represent a localized set of conditions, they are useful to highlight some of the
potential problems and challenges in using this aquifer for water supply in Central Texas.

Table 1 illustrates the low pH, hardness and alkalinity levels of the Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater
from these locations. Hardness averages about 70 mg/L, which is characteristic of water
generally considered ‘soft’ (Sawyer and McCarty, 1978). Concentrations of iron and manganese
are generally above the secondary maximum contaminant level (MCL). Corrosion indices
calculated from these data indicate the aggressive nature of the raw groundwater.

Also shown in Table 1 are analyses of surface water samples from the Guadalupe River and
samples of Edward’s Aquifer groundwater. These waters are considerably higher in pH,
hardness and alkalinity than the Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater. Hardness levels are
approximately 250 mg/L which is considered a ‘hard’ water. Corrosion indices indicate that the
water is non-aggressive and slightly scale forming.
 Table 1

Summary of Raw Water Quality

Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer Wells in Gonzales and Guadalupe Counties
Guadalupe River Surface Water
Edwards Aquifer Groundwater

Gonzales Co. Wells Guadalupe Guadalupe

Regulatory Edwards Aquifer
Parameter Units Co. Well River Surface
Limits Groundwater at
Water at
Average Range Schertz
Seguin
pH (field) s.u. 6.5-8.5 6.2 5.83 6.87 5.45 8.05 7.3
Temp (field) C° N/A 27.8 26.7 29.1 24 - -
CO2 (field) mg/L N/A 58.7 44.0 64.7 57.7 - -
Total hardness as CaCO3 mg/L N/A 70.9 30.3 164 31 257 268
Total alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/L N/A 32.6 17.5 67.5 37 210 243
Total Iron mg/L 0.30* 1.24 0.875 2.14 2.31 - -
Total Manganese mg/L 0.05* 0.0875 0.0467 0.14 0.0423 - -
Calculated Corrosion
Recommended Average Range
Indices
Aggressive Index (AI) >12 9.3 8.40 10.70 8.3 12.7 12.0
Ryznar Index (RI) 6.5-7.0 11.0 8.8 12.4 12.18 6.22 6.73
Langelier Index (LI) >0 -2.4 -3.3 -1.0 -3.36 0.91 0.29
Larson's Ratio >5.0 0.6 0.3 1.2 1.0 2.9 5.2
* indicates Secondary MCL
POTENTIAL WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT ISSUES

Water quality data shown in Table 1 indicates that elevated levels of iron and manganese, and
the corrosivity of the raw water need to be addressed. In addition, operating facilities have
experienced the following problems:
• Corrosion of metallic well and WTP components
• Deterioration of greensand filter media
• Filter loading rates less than design
• Excess chemical consumption for pH adjustment
A. Iron and Manganese
Table 1 shows that iron and manganese levels were consistently above the Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs). Elevated levels of iron in the raw groundwater are
illustrated in Figure 4 which shows heavy iron staining at a well discharge pad from a
Gonzales County well.
B. Corrosion Issues
Corrosion of well and
treatment system components
have been experienced at some
facilities. This corrosion is
most likely the result of low pH
and high levels of dissolved
carbon dioxide in the well
water. Figures 5 and 6 show
the corrosion of mild steel
column pipe from a vertical
turbine well pump from a
Gonzales County well after
approximately four (4) years of
service. Figures 7 and 8 show
the corrosion of the cast iron
vertical turbine pump impeller
and pump housing flange.
Downhole camera inspection of
the casing and stainless steel
pipe based well screen at these
locations did not indicate any
Figure 5. Corrosion of mild steel column pipe.
significant corrosion. Column
pipe and pump bowls have since been replaced with stainless steel at these locations.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 7

 Figure 6. Vertical turbine well pump column pipe corrosion.

Figure 7. Corrosion of pump impeller.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 8

 Figure 8. Corrosion of pump impeller and pump housing flange.

The Gonzales County groundwater is treated for iron and manganese removal using
pressure filters without atmospheric aeration, and manganese greensand filtration
with permanganate addition. The epoxy coated mild steel pressure filter internal
components showed considerable damage within three years of service. Figures 9
and 10 illustrate corrosion of the internal wall and underdrain plate of the pressure filter.
Figures 11 and 12 show pitting near the underdrain nozzle, and fine media that
apparently migrated through the filter to the underdrain.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 9

 Figure 9. Corrosion and pitting of the internal top wall of the pressure filter

Figure 10. Corrosion and pitting of underdrain plate.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 10

 Figure 11. Underdrain plate and nozzle. Note fine media particles.

Figure 12. Below underdrain plate with accumulation of fine media.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 11

 C. Deterioration of Filter Media

Filter media in this application consists of 1.0 foot of anthracite, 1.5 feet of manganese
greensand and approximately 1.0 foot of support gravel. It was suspected that the
manganese greensand was deteriorating and samples of this media were collected. This
sampling indicated a significant deterioration in the effective size (size decrease) of the
media. The effective size, often abbreviated as d10, is defined as that size for which 10%
of the grains are smaller by weight and is read from a sieve analysis curve at the 10%
passing point. The uniformity coefficient is a measure of the size range of the media and
is defined as the ratio of d60/d10, with d60 being the size for which 60% of the media are
smaller by weight (AWWA, 1990). The media size data from this filter indicated that the
effective size was less than 0.2 mm, which means that greater than 10% by weight of the
media sample passed the 0.2 mm sieve. Note that sieve sizes smaller than 0.2 mm were
not used in the sieve analysis. The manufacturer specifies the effective size of the
original media is to be within a range from 0.3 to 0.35 mm. The filter sample was greater
than 33% less than the manufacturer’s original product specification, indicating
significant media deterioration.

The manganese greensand supplied for this filter is a natural glauconitic greensand.
Under certain conditions, this type greensand media can deteriorate, with grains softening
and the manganese oxide coating dissolving or flaking from the surface. According
manufacturer, factors to consider if media deterioration is noted include the following:
• Water temperature – a maximum water temperature of 27° C is recommended.
• Silica and total dissolved solids concentration (TDS) – waters with silica levels below
10 mg/L or TDS levels less than 100 mg/L have been shown to contribute to media
failure and softening.
• pH – the minimum allowable pH is 6.2.

Data from well sampling indicate that water temperature at the well head ranged from
26.7 to 29.1° C. Silica and TDS levels were greater than 15 mg/L and 115 mg/L,
respectively. The pH of filter influent (5.8 to 6.8) can be below the minimum pH
recommended for greensand media (6.2). Therefore, while silica and TDS levels in the
influent water do not appear to be factors contributing to media deterioration, water
temperature could be a factor, particularly if during summer months water temperature at
the filters is higher than measured at the well head. However, it appears that influent pH
was the major cause of the media deterioration.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 12

 D. Pressure Filter Loadings

While the maximum design filtration rate for the pressure filters typically is limited to
5 gpm/ft2 of filter area, operators have reported they generally operate the filters at a
maximum rate of 3.25 to 3.5 gpm/ft2. The manufacturer of the conventional greensand
media requires that the differential pressure across the filter be limited to 10 psi, as
damage to the media is possible at greater pressures. Operators have set filters to
backwash when a differential pressure of 8 psi is reached. Operators report that when
operating at filter loading rates of 4 gpm/ft2 or greater filter run times are too short to be
practical.

E. Chemical Consumption

Chemical addition is required in order to a produce a less aggressive more stable water
and to adjust chemical parameters as required for blending. With Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer
groundwater, pH increase is generally desirable and is accomplished with either alkali
addition or removal of dissolved CO2. With alkali addition, the form of chemical and
feed point is an important consideration. With the low hardness water typically found in
Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater, there is opportunity to stabilize the water with lime without
resulting in final hardness levels that are unacceptable, particularly in Central Texas
where high hardness levels are typical. Since treatment processes using pressure filters
result in groundwater remaining under pressure from the well head through the treatment
process and to storage with no atmospheric exposure, excess CO2 is never allowed to
‘escape’ to the atmosphere. When caustic is added for pH adjustment, the caustic must
first neutralize dissolved CO2 resulting in more caustic consumption than would occur if
excess CO2 were allowed to escape to the atmosphere prior to caustic addition.

TREATMENT AND BLENDING CONSIDERATIONS

Characterization data and operational experience indicate that treatment may be required to
address the following water quality issues:
• Iron and manganese removal
• Corrosion control
• Water chemistry modifications for blending

As illustrated in the previous section, generally accepted treatment techniques for iron and
manganese removal may result in operational problems such as excessive corrosion and media
degradation when treating Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer groundwater. In addition, the unique
characteristics of this groundwater offer opportunities for lower cost methods for water
chemistry adjustments required to control corrosivity and to facilitate blending with other water
supplies.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 13

 A. Iron and Manganese Removal

Treatment techniques for iron and manganese removal are fairly well established, but the
specific characteristics of the Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater need to be considered in the
process selection. Table 2 provides a summary of the available methods for removal of
iron and manganese. The primary methods include the following:
• Aeration
• Permanganate
• Chlorine, and
• Chlorine dioxide

Aeration or the injection of air (molecular oxygen) to the raw water may provide some
degree of oxidation of iron and manganese under the proper conditions. Oxidation of
iron by molecular oxygen is considered quite slow at pH 6 and quite rapid at pH 7.5 and
above (AWWA, 1990). Oxidation of manganese by molecular oxygen is generally not
practiced as a pH of 8.5 or higher along with other conditions are required to make the
process feasible (AWWA, 1990). Since the pH of the raw water is generally 7 or less,
aeration by injection of air (without CO2 release) may not contribute significantly to iron
removal without considerable reaction time to allow significant oxidation to occur.
Atmospheric aeration with CO2 release may improve the effectiveness of iron oxidation
as the post-aeration pH of Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater may be above 7. A supplemental
oxidant may be necessary for consistent iron removal and required for effective
manganese removal.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 14

 Table 2

Potential Treatment Technologies

Treatment General
Specific Technology
Objective Technology
Draft aerators
Air oxidation
Air injection
Permanganate oxidation
Chlorine oxidation
Chemical oxidation Chlorine dioxide oxidation
Iron and Manganese Mixed oxidant oxidation
Removal/Treatment Ozone oxidation
Biological oxidation Ferazur/Mangazur process
Sodium silicate
Sequestration
Polyphosphates
Zeolite
Softening
Lime/soda ash
Pressure filtration
Granular Media
Filtration Gravity filters
Membrane Membrane filtration
Chlorine
Chloramines
Disinfection Chemical
Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
Aeration Draft aerators
Chlorine
Taste and Odor Control
Chemical Chlorine dioxide
Ozone
Caustic Soda
Chemical addition
Lime
Corrosion Control
Soda Ash
Aeration
Draft aerators

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 15

 Permanganate is currently used successfully to remove iron and manganese from Carrizo-
Wilcox groundwater. Permanganate is most effectively used with oxide coated filter
media such as manganese greensand as the greensand enhances the iron and manganese
removal process and tends to adsorb excess permanganate that can impart a pink color to
the water. As noted previously in this paper, deterioration of natural greensand media has
been observed most likely due to the low pH of the raw groundwater. Greensand Plus, a
manufactured manganese greensand, is an available alternative to greensand media.
While Greensand Plus is still detrimentally affected by low pH groundwater, it is not
subject to an 8-psi differential pressure limitation in a pressure filter application that
effectively limits the throughput capacity of the conventional greensand. According to
the Greensand Plus manufacturer, the media has been successfully operated at an 18-psi
pressure differential or a 125% increase over the current pressure limitation. By
increasing the pressure differential across the filters, the maximum flow rate of water
processed by each filter can be significantly increased to the maximum filter loading
typically allowed by TCEQ (5 gpm/ft2).

Free chlorine oxidation of iron is practical; however, alkaline conditions and chlorine
dosages well above the stoichiometric requirements are necessary in order to achieve
effective rates of oxidation for manganese (Langlais, 1991). Also, complexed iron is not
effectively removed by free chlorine (Langlais, 1991). While complexed iron is not often
encountered in Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater as dissolved organic carbon (DOC) levels
are less than 2.0 mg/L oxidation by free chlorine may not be practical as a primary
oxidant due to its inefficiency in oxidizing dissolved manganese (Sommerfeld, 1999).
The efficiency of free chlorine for the oxidation of manganese is greatly improved when
used in conjunction with manganese greensand. It has been suggested that chlorine
addition prior to manganese greensand filtration using the Greensand Plus media will
provide effective removal of dissolved manganese without permanganate addition.

Chlorine dioxide is effective in the rapid oxidation of uncomplexed iron and manganese
where the pH is above 5.0 to 5.5 (Langlais, 1991). However, chlorine dioxide has been
shown to be ineffective in the oxidation of iron and manganese when elevated levels of
dissolved organic carbon are present. Reduced iron that has been complexed by humic
and fulvic acids is apparently unaffected by chlorine dioxide concentrations in the range
of 3 to 5 mg/L. Manganese oxidation by chlorine dioxide was impeded by competitive
oxidant demand exerted by the dissolved organic carbon.

The major problem with the use of chlorine dioxide is that chlorite is formed as a
byproduct of the oxidation reactions. Chlorite concentration is limited to 1.0 mg/L under
the disinfection byproduct (DPB) regulations. Assuming iron and manganese
concentrations of 1.2 and 0.9 mg/L, respectively, the chlorine dioxide dosage necessary
for iron and manganese oxidation based on the theoretical requirements provided in
Table 8 is approximately 3.6 mg/L. Assuming that approximately 60 percent of the
chlorine dioxide is converted to chlorite (White, 1999, pg 1181), the chlorite
concentration would be approximately 2.2 mg/L, more than twice the allowable chlorite
concentration under the DBP rules. Therefore, chlorine dioxide addition will typically
not prove to be a practical treatment method for iron and manganese oxidation.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 16

 B. Corrosion Control

Carrizo-Wilcox aquifer groundwater has the potential to cause corrosion of well

components, raw water and treated water piping, treatment system components and
distribution systems. Not all Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater is equally corrosive and, as
discussed previously, proper sampling and characterization is important in assessing
corrosion potential.

Well components consist of the well casing, well screen, and pump components. Where
vertical turbine well pumps are used, basic pump components include the pump bowl and
impeller, column pipe, and pump shaft and pump discharge head. As discussed
previously, significant corrosion of mild steel column pipe and pump bowls have been
observed while stainless steel well screen and mild steel casing pipe have not shown
significant corrosion. While it is possible to provide cathodic protection for the well
screen, well casing and pump components, experience with corrosive Carrizo-Wilcox
groundwater has indicated that stainless steel components (column pipe and pump bowls)
have satisfactorily resisted corrosion.

The objective of corrosion control for drinking water generally means the production of
finished water that is chemically stable, neutral or slightly scale forming, and which has a
sufficient buffering system so that slight changes to the water do not result in significant
quality characteristic changes. In order to protect treatment system components from
corrosive attack as shown previously, chemical adjust prior to treatment is recommended
where raw groundwater demonstrates corrosive tendencies.

Various methods of water stabilization are available including the following:

• Aeration (removal of dissolved carbon dioxide)
• Caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) addition
• Lime (calcium hydroxide) addition
• Soda ash (sodium carbonate) addition

While aeration and alkali addition are effective methods to adjust pH, the stability of pH
once adjusted must also be considered. When practicing only pH adjustment, the pH of
the water can decrease to nearly pre-treatment levels given adequate time within the
distribution system. Buffer intensity, which is a measure of a water’s ability to resist
change in pH, is determined by measuring the quantity of strong base required to change
pH by one unit. Buffer intensity is generally a function of both pH and alkalinity. Given
the low alkalinity levels of the raw Carrizo Wilcox groundwater, alkalinity adjustment
should also be considered together with pH adjustment in order to form a more stable
finished water. Neutralizing dissolved carbon dioxide by the addition of caustic soda
(sodium hydroxide) or lime actually forms additional alkalinity as part of the
neutralization process (Stumm & Morgan, 1970); whereas the process of removing
dissolved carbon dioxide through aeration or air stripping does not alter alkalinity.
Poorly buffered waters can result in low localized pH in distribution systems as a result
of acid-producing biofilms such as nitrifers (Hart, 2009). In one study, alkalinity greater
than 80 mg/L was shown to reduce red water occurrences (Imran, 2005).
E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 17
 A comparison of common alkali is provided in Table 3. As indicated in Table 3, lime is
the least expensive alkali however, calcium is a component of lime and lime addition will
raise the hardness.

Table 3

Comparison of Common Alkali

Alkalinity Added Cost, 2009 Dollars

Chemical
(mg/L as CaCO3 per mg/L chemical) ($/ton)
Quicklime 1.35 110
Hydrated Lime 1.35 245
Sodium Hydroxide 1.25 788
Soda Ash 0.94 539
Sodium Bicarbonate 0.60 900
Source: Hart, 2009

In one system treating Carrizo-Wilcox groundwater using manganese greensand pressure

filtration with permanganate addition, a combination of hydrated lime addition (pre-
filtration) and caustic addition (post filtration) was demonstrated to be the most
economical method of pH adjustment and corrosion control. The lime and caustic feed
system includes the following:
• Roughly split the alkali requirement between lime and caustic (approximately 18
mg/L each),
• Reduce the caustic dosage and cost by half,
• Limit the hardness increase in the finished water from approximately 71 mg/L to
95 mg/L,
• Raise the pH of the raw water above the minimum recommended for the
greensand media (6.2) helping to prevent further media deterioration,
• Raise the pH while lowering the corrosivity of the raw water to lessen the
corrosive effects that the raw water has on the raw water piping, and
• Add the lime prior to the filters where any increases in turbidity due to the lime
addition has the potential to be removed by the filters.

The lime and caustic pH adjustment system reduced chemical cost by approximately
$150,000 during the first year of operation compared to the caustic only method of pH
adjustment. A hydrated lime slurry feed system was selected for feeding lime. The
capital cost of the liquid hydrated lime system was approximately $300,000 less than dry
hydrated lime feed system and approximately $400,000 less than the quicklime system .
Liquid hydrated lime was available for delivery at the plant site at 30 to 35% solution and
a 10,000 gallon bulk storage tank was purchased for storage and feeding of the hydrated
lime slurry. The bulk storage tank was mounted on load cells which measured the weight
of the tank and its contents. Coupled with a microprocessor, the load cells were able to

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 18

 monitor the weight of a delivery of hydrated lime. With the lime solution strength as
delivered entered to the processor and the initial solution strength prior to delivery, the
weight of water to be added to the tank to attain the desired solution feed strength was
computed. By monitoring the weight of water added, the microprocessor regulated the
addition of water to attain the desired feed concentration. The lime slurry storage tank is
shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14. Lime Slurry Storage Tank.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 19

REFERENCES

American Water Works Association (AWWA). 1990. Water Supply and Treatment. 4th Edition,
McGraw-Hill.

Ashworth, John B., and Janie Hopkins. 1995. Aquifers of Texas, Report 345. Texas Water
Development Board (TWDB), November.

Boghici, Radu. 2009. Water Quality in the Carrizo-Wilcox Aquifer, 1990–2006, Report 372.
Texas Water Development Board. January.

Boghici, Radu. 2003. A Field Manual for Groundwater Sampling, UM 51. Texas Water
Development Board. March.

Hart, Vincent, Thomas Crowley and Sam Samandi. 2009. Expensive Problem, Inexpensive
Solution, Boost Alkalinity with Carbon Dioxide and Lime. Opflow, American Water Works
Association, September.

Imran, S.J., et. al. 2005. Red Water Release in Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Journal
AWWA, September.

Langlais, Bruno, David A Reckhow and Deborah R Brink. 1991. Ozone in Water Treatment,
Application and Engineering. AWWA Research Foundation, Lewis Publishers.

National Lime Association. 2000. Using Lime for Acid Neutralization.

Sawyer, Clair, N. and Perry L McCarty. 1978. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering, 3rd ed.
McGraw Hill.

Sommerfeld, Elmer O. 1999. Iron and Manganese Removal Handbook. American Water Works
Association.

Stumm, W, and James J Morgan. 1970. Aquatic Chemistry. Wiley-Interscience.

White, George Clifford. 1999. Handbook of Chlorination, 4th edition. Wiley Interscience.

E:\AWWA Paper\East Meets West.doc Page 20