| Title: |
Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by Adsorptive Media U.S. EPA Demonstration Project at Dummerston, VT Final Performance Evaluation Report
|
| Resource Type: |
document --> case study
|
| Country: |
USA
|
| Year: |
2008 |
| Availability: |
EPA/600/R-08/081, July 2008
|
| Author 1/Producer: |
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
|
| Author / Producer Type: |
Agency, regulator or other governmental or inter-governmental body
|
| Format (e.g. PDF): |
PDF
|
|
EUGRIS Keyword(s): |
Contaminated land-->Contaminants-->Heavy metals
Diffuse pollution-->Processes
Water and sanitation-->Water supply
|
| Short description: |
EXTRACT:
This report documents the activities performed and the results obtained for the arsenic removal treatment technology demonstration project at Charette Mobile Home Park (CMHP) in Dummerston, Vermont. The objectives of the project were to evaluate: (1) the effectiveness of an Aquatic Treatment Systems (ATS) arsenic removal system in removing arsenic to meet the new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 ìg/L, (2) the reliability of the treatment system, (3) the required system operation and maintenance (O&M) and operator skills, and (4) the capital and O&M cost of the technology. The project also characterized water in the distribution system and residuals produced by the treatment process.
The ATS system consisted of two parallel treatment trains, each having three 10-in diameter, 54-in tall, sealed polyglass columns connected in series to treat up to 11 gal/min (gpm) of water. Water supplied from three source water wells was chlorinated to provide chlorine residuals and then passed through a 25-ìm sediment filter and the three adsorption columns in each train. Each adsorption column was loaded with 1.5 ft3 of A/I Complex 2000 adsorptive media, which consisted of an activated alumina substrate and a proprietary iron complex. Based on the design flowrate of 11 gpm through each train, the empty bed contact time (EBCT) in each column was 1 min and the hydraulic loading rate to each column was 20.4 gpm/ft2. The actual flowrate was much lower, averaging only 2.8 and 3.3 gpm for Trains A and B, respectively, throughout the evaluation period. A 50% reduction in flow was observed after the 23rd week of operation. The flowrate increased again after the 39th week but fluctuated greatly after this point. As a result, each adsorption column had a much longer EBCT, ranging from 1.6 to 56.1 min throughout the entire study period. The highly variable and low flowrates from the wells might be attributed, in part, to slow recovery rates of the aquifer resulting from a dry summer.
|
|
Submitted By:
|
Professor Paul Bardos WhoDoesWhat?
Last update: 06/10/2008
|
|
|
