Capital Planning and Delivery of Wastewater Treatment Projects to Meet Air Emissions Requirements – Solids Processing

2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 (11) ◽  
pp. 4491-4503
Author(s):  
Diala Dandach ◽  
Art Schatz ◽  
Mary Fong ◽  
Bohdan Bodniewicz ◽  
Jim Marx ◽  
...  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 (11) ◽  
pp. 4474-4490
Author(s):  
Laetitia Mulamula ◽  
Kevin Voit ◽  
Jim Marx ◽  
Bohdan Bodniewicz ◽  
Walter Bailey ◽  
...  

2005 ◽  
Vol 113 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 93-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Easter ◽  
Chris Quigley ◽  
Peter Burrowes ◽  
Jay Witherspoon ◽  
Dirk Apgar

2017 ◽  
Vol 114 (8) ◽  
pp. 1862-1867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel B. Gingerich ◽  
Xiaodi Sun ◽  
A. Patrick Behrer ◽  
Inês L. Azevedo ◽  
Meagan S. Mauter

Coal-fired power plants (CFPPs) generate air, water, and solids emissions that impose substantial human health, environmental, and climate change (HEC) damages. This work demonstrates the importance of accounting for cross-media emissions tradeoffs, plant and regional emissions factors, and spatially variation in the marginal damages of air emissions when performing regulatory impact analyses for electric power generation. As a case study, we assess the benefits and costs of treating wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD) wastewater at US CFPPs using the two best available treatment technology options specified in the 2015 Effluent Limitation Guidelines (ELGs). We perform a life-cycle inventory of electricity and chemical inputs to FGD wastewater treatment processes and quantify the marginal HEC damages of associated air emissions. We combine these spatially resolved damage estimates with Environmental Protection Agency estimates of water quality benefits, fuel-switching benefits, and regulatory compliance costs. We estimate that the ELGs will impose average net costs of $3.01 per cubic meter for chemical precipitation and biological wastewater treatment and $11.26 per cubic meter for zero-liquid discharge wastewater treatment (expected cost-benefit ratios of 1.8 and 1.7, respectively), with damages concentrated in regions containing a high fraction of coal generation or a large chemical manufacturing industry. Findings of net cost for FGD wastewater treatment are robust to uncertainty in auxiliary power source, location of chemical manufacturing, and binding air emissions limits in noncompliant regions, among other variables. Future regulatory design will minimize compliance costs and HEC tradeoffs by regulating air, water, and solids emissions simultaneously and performing regulatory assessments that account for spatial variation in emissions impacts.


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Fred ◽  
M. Heinonen ◽  
L. Sundell ◽  
S. Toivikko

EC regulation (166/2006) obligates all urban waste water treatment plants above 100.000 PE in European Union area to report their water and air emissions by PRTR protocol from year 2007. There were no general rules or correlations determined to calculate or measure air emissions of municipal wastewater plant. Due to fact that major part of the treatment plants is uncovered, individual air emission study was demanding to implement. In Finland a group of large wastewater treatment plants studied PRTR air emissions based on the samples of Viikinmäki WWTP (780.000 PE), the largest wastewater treatment plant in Finland. Since Viikinmäki WWTP is completely covered, underground plant, ventilation air analyses were possible to implement in full scale. Based on this study, air emissions of Viikinmäki WWTP has been determined and reported to fulfil the PRTR protocol demands. Air emission model was accepted by Finnish Environmental Authorities and the air emission model of Viikinmäki WWTP was used by other, large Finnish WWTPs.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document