AWWA ACE54250 PDF

AWWA ACE54250 PDF

Name:
AWWA ACE54250 PDF

Published Date:
06/01/2001

Status:
Active

Description:

Meeting the Challenges of the New Arsenic Rule: Conventional Treatment of Surface/Groundwater Blends

Publisher:
American Water Works Association

Document status:
Active

Format:
Electronic (PDF)

Delivery time:
10 minutes

Delivery time (for Russian version):
200 business days

SKU:

Choose Document Language:
$7.2
Need Help?
The proposed Arsenic Rule currently under review by the Environmental Protection Agency has the potential to present significant challenges to a large number of drinking water purveyors in complying with a lower arsenic standard. SierraPacific Power Company (Sierra) in Reno, Nevada is one of the purveyors that will be affected by the new rule. Sierra's water production occurs from 2 surface water treatment plants and 29 wells. A significant fraction of these production wells have arsenic and Sierra (and its customers) will be affected, though the extent depends upon the standard set in the final rule. For example, if the standard is set at 5 ppb, then 23 of Sierra's 29 wells would violate the maximum contaminant level (MCL). An economical option, in Sierra's estimation, is to utilize the existing conventional treatment plant facilities for the removal ofarsenic from groundwater exceeding the MCL. This paper details the findings from research that was conducted to determine the effectiveness of coagulation for the removal of arsenic from various blends of ground and surface water. Full scaletesting was conducted to determine the arsenic removal effectiveness of the existing treatment process (conventional treatment with alum) at the Glendale Water Treatment Plant. Additional bench-scale evaluation (jar testing) was conducted to determine the influence on arsenic removal of process variables such as pH, coagulant (alum and ferric chloride) and coagulant dose. Optimal arsenic removal via conventional treatment (with alum) occurred in the pH range 5-7.5. Raw water (blended) arsenic concentrations in the range of 25-60 ppb were successfully treated to a final (post-filtration) arsenic concentration lessthan 10 ppb in this pH range (alum dose approximately 20 mg/L). Ferric chloride was also shown to be effective in the same pH range (in bench-scale tests) for blends of well/surface water ranging from 25% to 100% well water. Includes table, figures.
Edition : Vol. - No.
File Size : 1 file , 400 KB
Note : This product is unavailable in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus
Number of Pages : 10
Published : 06/01/2001

History


Related products

AWWA ACE54338
Published Date: 06/01/2001
Harnessing the Positive Power of Change: Integrating Strategic Business and Strategic Information Systems Planning
$7.2
AWWA ACE54427
Published Date: 06/01/2001
Perchlorate Removal onto GAC and Chemical Regeneration
$7.2
AWWA ACE54391
Published Date: 06/01/2001
Case Study of Arsenic and Radon Rule Compliance Impacts in Mesa, Arizona
$7.2
AWWA ACE54481
Published Date: 06/01/2001
Overcoming the Fear of a Colored Water Catastrophe by Developing a Plan for the Successful Integration of a New Water Source
$7.2

Best-Selling Products

AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2003
Published Date: 12/01/2003
Biological Evaluation of Medical Devices Part 1: Evaluation and Testing
$26.4
AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2009 Erratum
Published Date: 06/10/2013
Erratum for Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
Free Download
AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2009/(R)2013
Published Date: 09/03/2009
Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process; Includes Erratum (2013)
AAMI/ISO 10993-1:2018
Published Date: 04/27/2020
Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 1: Evaluation and testing within a risk management process
$82.5
AAMI/ISO 10993-10:2010/(R)2014
Published Date: 09/04/2010
Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 10: Tests for irritation and skin sensitization
$82.5
AAMI/ISO 10993-11:2006/(R)2014
Published Date: 10/19/2006
Biological evaluation of medical devices - Part 11: Tests for systemic toxicity