Premium
Treatment alternatives for compliance with the Stage 2 D/DBPR: An economic update
Author(s) -
Roy Alan J.
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
journal ‐ american water works association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.466
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1551-8833
pISSN - 0003-150X
DOI - 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2010.tb10071.x
Subject(s) - limiting , risk analysis (engineering) , agency (philosophy) , emerging technologies , quality (philosophy) , environmental economics , business , biochemical engineering , computer science , engineering , economics , mechanical engineering , philosophy , epistemology , artificial intelligence
A concise review of the standard treatment technologies used to achieve compliance with the Stage 2 Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts Rule (D/DBPR), along with their respective advantages and disadvantages, is presented in this article. Capital and operating cost estimates for D/DBPR compliance, first released in 2005 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, are updated. As many utilities have found, switching to a disinfectant other than chlorine may be effective in limiting regulated disinfection byproducts, but it can also create new DBPs whose effects are not well known or understood. Treatment technologies that remove the source of the byproducts, although more expensive, may prove to be the better alternative ‐ especially when the additional contaminant removal often required in addition to the reduction of DBPs is factored into the equation. By implementing organic matter removal technologies, a water utility can best achieve Stage 2 D/DBPR compliance without creating additional problems in the treated water and will likely achieve additional benefits in terms of improved water quality. This article can help utilities prepare for technology selection as well as future treatment needs and budgeting of expenses.