Utilities must decide whether to modify their existing treatment practices to achieve compliance with the D/DBP regulations. A regulatory impact analysis predicted that up to 70% of large surface-water systems would need to make some treatment modifications.  Meeting multiple water-quality objectives plays an important role in the decision-making process of water utilities. Utilities must meet other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards. In addition, there are operational, financial, and engineering issues that affect the selection of treatment technologies. Because of the uncertainty of how stringent certain regulations will be and the high costs of advanced treatment technologies, many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. Most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. Utilities must factor in other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards when selecting a treatment modification for compliance with the D/DBP Rule. Some utilities chose advanced treatment processes (e.g., ozonation, membranes) that would enable them to satisfy other current and anticipated future regulations or other water quality objectives. Some systems chose ozone, in part because of its ability to destroy taste-and-odor-causing contaminants. Likewise, granular activated carbon was added to filters for taste-and-odor control. In addition, space and retrofit considerations affected technology choices.   Many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. To meet Stage 1 of the D/DBP Rule, most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. The major disadvantage to staged implementation was that the treatment process was re-optimized each time treatment modifications were made. However, this problem was minimized if the full range of changes in treatment was envisioned in advance and if incremental modifications were made that were part of and consistent with long-term modifications.  Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003   This publication can be purchased and downloaded via Pay Per View on Water Intelligence Online - click on the Pay Per View icon below

The purpose of this project was to perform a careful evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) removal. Specifically, the first objective of this project was to identify and fill data gaps related to the implementation and operation of AOPs with respect to MTBE removal. The second objective was to select and optimize the design of the most promising AOP(s) as a function of water quality parameters. The third objective was to determine conceptual-level engineering costs for these selected AOPs. The AOP technologies that were evaluated as part of this study included ozone/peroxide, continuous wave UV/peroxide, pulsed UV/peroxide, and E beam. The AOP technologies were compared with treatment costs, qualitative factors (e.g., technology reliability, flexibility), and influent and treated water quality considerations. Based on the comparative analysis, it was concluded that all the AOP technologies that were evaluated in this study are capable of removing MTBE at 95% or higher efficiencies. Ozone/peroxide and continuous UV/peroxide appear to be the most feasible technologies for AOP treatment of MTBE in drinking water sources. Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003 ?

Utilities must decide whether to modify their existing treatment practices to achieve compliance with the D/DBP regulations. A regulatory impact analysis predicted that up to 70% of large surface-water systems would need to make some treatment modifications.  Meeting multiple water-quality objectives plays an important role in the decision-making process of water utilities. Utilities must meet other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards. In addition, there are operational, financial, and engineering issues that affect the selection of treatment technologies. Because of the uncertainty of how stringent certain regulations will be and the high costs of advanced treatment technologies, many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. Most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. Utilities must factor in other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards when selecting a treatment modification for compliance with the D/DBP Rule. Some utilities chose advanced treatment processes (e.g., ozonation, membranes) that would enable them to satisfy other current and anticipated future regulations or other water quality objectives. Some systems chose ozone, in part because of its ability to destroy taste-and-odor-causing contaminants. Likewise, granular activated carbon was added to filters for taste-and-odor control. In addition, space and retrofit considerations affected technology choices.   Many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. To meet Stage 1 of the D/DBP Rule, most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. The major disadvantage to staged implementation was that the treatment process was re-optimized each time treatment modifications were made. However, this problem was minimized if the full range of changes in treatment was envisioned in advance and if incremental modifications were made that were part of and consistent with long-term modifications.  Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003   This publication can be purchased and downloaded via Pay Per View on Water Intelligence Online - click on the Pay Per View icon below

The purpose of this project was to perform a careful evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility of advanced oxidation processes (AOPs) for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) removal. Specifically, the first objective of this project was to identify and fill data gaps related to the implementation and operation of AOPs with respect to MTBE removal. The second objective was to select and optimize the design of the most promising AOP(s) as a function of water quality parameters. The third objective was to determine conceptual-level engineering costs for these selected AOPs. The AOP technologies that were evaluated as part of this study included ozone/peroxide, continuous wave UV/peroxide, pulsed UV/peroxide, and E beam. The AOP technologies were compared with treatment costs, qualitative factors (e.g., technology reliability, flexibility), and influent and treated water quality considerations. Based on the comparative analysis, it was concluded that all the AOP technologies that were evaluated in this study are capable of removing MTBE at 95% or higher efficiencies. Ozone/peroxide and continuous UV/peroxide appear to be the most feasible technologies for AOP treatment of MTBE in drinking water sources. Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003 ?