Full Description

Under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) was mandated to propose a revised maximum contaminant level (MCL) by January 2000 and promulgate a final Arsenic Rule by January 2001. The USEPA officially released the draft Arsenic Rule in June 2000 and promulgated the final Arsenic Rule in January 2001. With the promulgation of this rule, the arsenic MCL was revised downward to 10 ug/L. Among the most notable differences between the proposed and final arsenic rules is the requirement that non-transient non-community (NTNC) water systems will be required to comply with the proposed MCL, not simply monitor for arsenic and notify those affected. This requirement will require an estimated 1,000 NTNC systems to remove arsenic from their water supplies. Most of these systems are very small with limited resources thereby necessitating simple and cost effective treatment solutions. Based on a review of United States Geologic Survey data, Washington ranks approximately 17th in arsenic in groundwater sources, with other Western States such as California, Nevada, Arizona, and Utah ranking much higher. Although arsenic is not as prevalent in the groundwater of Washington as it is in many other states, it will arguably have a greater impact on more systems in the state than any rule promulgated by the USEPA within the past 10 years. In addition, there have been cases where arsenic in private wells has exceeded 5,000 ug/L (Frost et al., 1993). As a result of these concerns, the Department of Health (DOH) Division of Drinking Water convened a cross-disciplinary group of staff to assist purveyors, counties, and other local health jurisdictions to understand and act upon the issues related to arsenic in groundwater. Fortunately, there is a wealth of information on arsenic treatment and associated issues to assist in the development of treatment guidance that is readily understood by owners and operators of very small systems. With all this information, the focus of treatment technology assistance will be to assist purveyors in understanding the issues associated with appropriate treatment technologies. The most appropriate technology for a given source will depend upon a number of factors including:system size;arsenic concentration;other water quality parameters (pH, Fe, Mn, etc . . .);existing treatment; and, residual disposal options. Includes 8 references, figures.

Product Details

Edition: Vol. - No. Published: 11/01/2002 Number of Pages: 6File Size: 1 file , 610 KB