1 / 27

Arsenic Treatment & Monitoring for Small Water Systems: SPWSTAC 2006

Explore arsenic field test kit evaluation, POU case study, costs, and results for compliance in small water systems. Learn about evaluation methods, operator performance, and POU effectiveness.

rowdy
Télécharger la présentation

Arsenic Treatment & Monitoring for Small Water Systems: SPWSTAC 2006

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2006 NGWA Ground Water Summit Arsenic Treatment and Monitoring for Small Water Systems J. Mitchell Spear, Charles A. Cole, Yuefeng Xie and Alison Shuler Penn State Harrisburg SPWSTAC 2006

  2. Objectives • Assist small public water systems better achieving arsenic compliance • Evaluate several arsenic field test kits used for operational monitoring • Perform a demonstration case study on a POU treatment device for removal of arsenic in a small public water system SPWSTAC 2006

  3. Overview • Arsenic field test kit evaluation • POU Case Study • Community Background • POU Installations • Arsenic Removal Results • POU Costs • Summary SPWSTAC 2006

  4. Arsenic Test Kits Evaluation • Evaluate several commercially available field test kits and determine reliability and applicability to water utilities currently conducting noncompliance arsenic analyses. SPWSTAC 2006

  5. Methods • Laboratory performance • Accuracy • Precision • Linearity • Operator performance • “ease of use” SPWSTAC 2006

  6. Field test kits SPWSTAC 2006

  7. General Characteristics SPWSTAC 2006

  8. General Characteristics SPWSTAC 2006

  9. Reference Method • US EPA approved • EPA Method 7060A Graphite Furnace Atomic Absorbance (GFAA) SPWSTAC 2006

  10. Laboratory Performance • Accuracy and Precision • Traditionally (Method Detection Limit) • Accuracy (percent recovery) • % Recovery = ConcTestKit / ConcGFAA * 100 • Precision (standard deviation) • Arsenic III, V, III + V • Concentration • Replicates SPWSTAC 2006

  11. Percent Recoveries SPWTAC 2006

  12. Linearity 5, 10, 25, 50, 75 ug/L SPWSTAC 2006

  13. Operator “Ease of Use” SPWSTAC 2006

  14. Applications • Routine monitoring • Pilot testing • Monitoring raw water • Monitoring removal efficiencies • Testing reliability of surrogate analyses • i.e. conductivity on RO devices • Offset required compliance monitoring? SPWSTAC 2006

  15. POU Demonstration • Perform POU evaluation to determine arsenic removal efficiency and applicability to small water utilities for centralized management as a potential cost savings technology for achieving compliance. SPWSTAC 2006

  16. Background System selection • Mohrsville, PA SPWSTAC 2006

  17. Treatment Design POU Treatment Design SPWTAC 2006

  18. Installations SPWSTAC 2006

  19. Installations • Licensed Plumber • 9 POU units installed SPWSTAC 2006

  20. Initial Results on Arsenic Removal SPWSTAC 2006

  21. Monitoring Results on all POUsby GFAA SPWSTAC 2006

  22. POU Piloting Costs (1st year)

  23. POU Annual Cost Total - $31 / unit / month SPWSTAC 2006

  24. Management Plan Template • Find Technical Assistance • Community Outreach and Education • POU Vendor Selection • Establishing Control of POU • Determining Service Charges SPWSTAC 2006

  25. Management Plan Template • Securing Funding • Educate Technicians (install, O&M, etc.) • Ensuring Access • Managing Files and Records SPWTAC 2006

  26. Conclusions • Performance varies on arsenic field test kits • Test Kits can be used for operational monitoring • POU effective for removing arsenic • POU may be more economical solution in very small water systems • POU and field test kits can represent cost saving when appropriately applied SPWSTAC 2006

  27. Acknowledgements • US EPA Small Public Water Systems Technology Assistance Center Grant • Magnesium Elektron, Inc. and Jim Knoll for their technical guidance • The PA DEP District Office, Alice Renshaw (President of Mohrsville Water Association) and participating homeowners for their cooperation • Mark Zhou, Ralaene Gabriel, Peng Chen, Mukesh Pratap, Brian Montalbano, Paul Deardorff, and Julia Stiles • Trace Detect for loan of their instrumentation SPWSTAC 2006

More Related