|
is expected that regulations will be passed
<br /> targeting specific compounds. As a result, References
<br /> when developing an approach to address TOC Drewes,J.; Bellona, C.L.; Xu, P.; Amy, G.;
<br /> removal, it is prudent to consider the ability of Filteau, G.; and Oelker, G. (2008) "Comparing
<br /> potential alternatives to not only reduce TOC Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis for
<br /> as a whole but target specific CECs that are Treating Recycled Water"American Water
<br /> likely to be regulated.This approach will help Works Association Research Foundation. _
<br /> to prevent costly upgrades needed to remove
<br /> targeted CECs once more specific regulations McGuire, M.; Davis, M.I<.; Liang, S.; Tate,
<br /> are promulgated. C.H.; Aieta, E.M.; Wallace, L.E.; Wilkes, D.R.; 4
<br /> Crittenden,J.C.}Vaith, K. (1989) "Optimization
<br /> Various technologies will remove TOC from and Economic Evaluation of Granular Activated
<br /> secondary-treated wastewater, including: Carbon for Organic Removal,"American Water
<br /> Works Association Research Foundation,
<br /> ■ Coagulation and filtration
<br /> ■ Adsorption Snyder, S.; Wert, E.; Ongxia, L.; Westerhoff, P.;
<br /> ■ Membrane filtration Yeomin,Y. (2007) "Removal of EDCs and
<br /> ■ Advanced oxidation Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse •
<br /> Treatment Processes,"American Water Works
<br /> Among these technologies, carbon adsorption, Association Research Foundation.
<br /> nanofiltration, and reverse osmosis hold the
<br /> most promise for reducing TOC concentrations Stearns &Wheler LLC(2009) "Final i
<br /> to comply with the very low concentrations Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan t
<br /> established by recent regulations. and Final Environmental Impact Report,Town
<br /> of Chatham, Massachusetts." `.
<br /> The cost to implement TOC removal
<br /> technologies following secondary treatment is Snyder, S.; Westerhoff, P.; Yeomin,Y.; Sedlak,
<br /> not trivial. Based on cost information D. (2003) "Pharmaceuticals, Personal Care
<br /> developed in the Chatham, Mass. case study, Products, and Endocrine Disruptors in Water: ,
<br /> the cost of meeting the new TOC removal Implications for the Water Industry,"
<br /> requirements for groundwater discharge is Environmental Engineering Science Volume 20,
<br /> approximately twice the cost of an enhanced Number S.
<br /> nitrogen removal process alone.
<br /> Speitel, G.; Mario, M.; Wanielista,J.; Davis,J.
<br /> In this uncertain regulatory environment, when (1999) "Advanced Oxidation and
<br /> expensive treatment processes are being Biodegradation Processes for the Destruction
<br /> required to meet discharge limits,significant of TOC and DBP Precursors,"American Water
<br /> dollars are at stake. It is in the best interest of Works Association Research Foundation.
<br /> wastewater managers to continue to track and
<br /> maintain involvement in state and federal United States Environmental Protection Agency
<br /> regulatory processes as new CEC regulations Office of Water(1999) "Enhanced Coagulation
<br /> continue to evolve. ■ and Enhanced Precipitative Softening
<br /> Guidance Manual."
<br /> {
<br /> Westerhoff, P. (2003) "Removal of Endocrine
<br /> Disruptors, Pharmaceuticals, and Personal Care o
<br /> Products During Water Treatment,"Southwest ,
<br /> Hydrology.
<br /> a
<br /> 34 The NEWEA Journal Winter 2010
<br />
|