Viewed products

AWWA WQTC60742

AWWA WQTC60742 Evaluation of Non-Treatment Solutions for Compliance with Arsenic Rule: City of Peoria Arsenic Mitigation Study

Conference Proceeding by American Water Works Association, 11/15/2004

Sinha, Shahnawaz; Legg, Chris; Van Fleet, Dave; Chowdhury, Zaid; DeHaan, Michelle

More details

Download

PDF AVAILABLE FORMATS IMMEDIATE DOWNLOAD
$10.56

$24.00

(price reduced by 56 %)

Full Description

The City of Peoria (City) delivers potable water to 100,000 of its residents usingcombination of its ground and surface water supplies. The City currently operates 29wells to supplement its treated surface water supplies from two drinking water treatmentplants (WTPs), the Greenway and Pyramid Peak. Most of the wells that the City operateshave arsenic concentrations above detectable levels (2 g/L) while some of the wellsexceed 10 g/L level (Ahmed, 2003). The Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) forarsenic will be lowered from 50 to 10 g/L on January 2006. Water utilities that usegroundwater above the new MCL for arsenic will have significant challenges incomplying with the upcoming regulation.The City completed a planning study and is currently implementing the recommendationsof the study toward lowering the arsenic concentration for its potable water supply. Theyrecently explored several non-treatment approaches towards minimizing the arsenicconcentration. These options include: blending (i.e., blending low arsenic with higharsenic water), variable pumping rate (i.e., altering pumping strategies), and wellrehabilitation (i.e., modification of well screening). Other options that are availableinclude well head or centralized treatment. Treatment technologies are effective forremoving arsenic (95%) but are associated with high capital and operational costs.Moreover issues related to safe disposal of the arsenic laden sludge, spent adsorbents ormembrane treated brine makes it even more difficult to implement treatment strategies.As a result, non-treatment strategies were being prioritized over treatment options as afirst step toward meeting the upcoming regulation.This paper discusses some of the non-treatment options that were evaluated by the City.The findings of this study can also be used by other community and non-communitywater systems for implementing non-treatment as an alternative to arsenic compliance. Includes tables, figures.

Contact us