Laserfiche WebLink
Removing Total Organic Carbon from Wastewater <br /> TableAdvantages and Disadvantages of the Alternative TOCIRernoval Technologies <br /> TOC Removal CEC Removal Adaptability to <br /> Process Advantages Disadvantages ' Future <br /> Efficiency Efficiency Regulations r <br /> Membrane Small land Pretreatment High High May not I <br /> Filtration (NF requirements required. require <br /> or RO) for membrane Post-treatment modification. <br /> filtration required. <br /> compared to Chemical storage <br /> traditional and handling <br /> methods. required. <br /> Can achieve Concentrate , <br /> extremely high disposal required. <br /> level of High operation r <br /> organics and maintenance <br /> removal. costs. Capital ` <br /> costs are <br /> relatively high. <br /> Advanced Small land Relatively Moderate Moderate Minor <br /> Oxidation requirements complex process modifications a <br /> (UV+Peroxide) for inline UV requiring may be <br /> and chemical operator attention required, <br /> injection. and training. <br /> Can achieve Chemical storage <br /> high level of and handling <br /> organics required. <br /> removal. High operation <br /> Capital costs and maintenance <br /> are relatively costs. <br /> low for UV <br /> systems. <br /> Snyder et al, 2003; Snyder et al, 2007; Westerhoff et al, 2003. <br /> As shown in Figure 5,the town's WWTF is in added benefit of putting the water <br /> a Zone II, and the groundwater recharge has a supply well back in production. <br /> travel time of greater than 2 years.This <br /> recharge triggers a new TOC limit of 3.0 mg/L. ■ Abandon the well (to eliminate the <br /> The Zone II is the result of a single well,which Zone II area) and develop a <br /> has not been operational for years due to replacement well in another part of , <br /> impacted water quality unrelated to the town. <br /> WWTF. Chatham evaluated a variety of Table 2 compares preliminary costs for each <br /> alternatives to address the TOC limitations in alternative to the cost of enhanced nitrogen <br /> addition to ENR, including the following removal alone.The cost comparison indicates <br /> alternatives: that ENR and TOC treatment at the WWTF <br /> ■ Augment the ENR process to include would nearly double the costs of ENR ' <br /> a membrane bioreactor(MBR) treatment alone. This is due to the significantly <br /> followed by GAC adsorption to meet higher operation and maintenance (O&M) <br /> the 3.0 mg/L TOC limit. costs associated with GAC adsorption.The <br /> ■ Continue with ENR at the WWTF, but cost comparison also indicates that the lowest <br /> treat the water supply well with GAC cost alternative to address the new TOC <br /> adsorption. This would have the requirements would be to treat the water <br /> 32 The NEWER Journal Winter 2010 <br />