|
Mercury
Work Group
Phase II Reports >> Technology Identification Subgroup Report
Facilities Loadings
| Pretreatment Manual |
Tech. Identification
Hg Management Guidebook | Mercury Products
Database
For more
information, contact David Eppstein by email at
deppstein@masco.harvard.edu,
or by calling 617-632-2860.
VII. OBSERVATIONS
The
Technology Identification Subgroup learned much about mercury
and its special characteristics in wastewater during this
project. Although it was not the intention of the Subgroup to
draw conclusions or make recommendations, we would like to share
the following observations:
-
The
Technology Identification Subgroup has learned from this
limited feasibility testing project that potentially viable
mercury removal technologies may be available in the
marketplace. Any technology that showed feasibility (i.e.,
some level) of mercury removal for the selected clinical
laboratory wastewater may be worthy of further study.
-
A
thorough evaluation of the mercury sources in each
wastestream from a facility should be done before a search
for pretreatment technologies begins.
-
Although
it was tailored to specific goals, a wastewater
characterization study similar to the one described in Appendix
B of this report can provide valuable information
for both the mercury source evaluation and the pretreatment
technology search.
-
Each
wastewater stream is likely unique and should be subjected
to a thorough matching procedure with a specific removal
technology if low effluent mercury concentrations are to be
achieved on a continuous basis. A critical aspect of the
matching process is some type of mercury speciation testing
of representative wastestream samples.
-
It
is important that manufacturers of mercury removal treatment
systems understand what species of mercury their technology
readily removes. The manufacturers can then determine, in
bench-scale feasibility tests, what, if any, initial
treatment of the specific wastestream prior to the mercury
removal process might be necessary. Since most wastestreams
contain several forms of mercury, it is likely that some
type of initial treatment will be needed to convert some
percentage of the existing various mercury species to one
form.
-
It
is not appropriate to dismiss any specific technology from
consideration simply because the technology may appear to
remove only one form of mercury.
-
Any
needed initial treatment steps (such as coarse and fine
filtration, oxidation, or carbon adsorption) placed before
the mercury removal technology should preferably be
determined by bench-scale feasibility and treatability
testing for each wastewater stream. Then, further confidence
and system design data can be realized by on-site pilot
testing.
-
One
initial goal of the project was to provide an economic
analysis of the systems. Because of the variability of
feasibility testing procedures employed by the vendors, the
Technology Identification Subgroup could not fairly compare
the costs of the systems to each other. Also, because of the
limited nature of bench-scale feasibility testing, any cost
estimates provided by vendors must be considered as
preliminary only. However, the Subgroup found that several
preliminary vendor cost estimates were competitive/similar
to those associated with classical metal removal systems.
The Subgroup also found that predicted spatial requirements
of many of the full-scale systems were similar to those of
classical metal removal systems.
Refer
to the individual vendor reports in Appendix
F for their preliminary full-scale system cost estimates
and predicted spatial requirements.
RETURN
TO TECHNOLOGY IDENTIFICATION SUBGROUP REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
