Case Studies

Demonstrating the capabilities of Veolia Water Technologies in North America

Select by Market Using the Dropdown Menu to Refine Your Search

89 case studies

1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9

ACTIFLO® Turbo and Multimedia Filtration vs. Ultrafiltration

Carbon Footprint

A heating facility in Wisconsin required nearby lake water to be clarified and demineralized in order to produce water suitable for boiler feed.

AquaMAXTM 2.0 vs. Chemical Treatment for Cooling Towers

Carbon Footprint

A large pharmaceutical company's R&D campus utilizes chemical treatment to maintain the condenser cooling water systems, and heat exchange surfaces.

BIOBED® EGSB vs. Activated Sludge

Carbon Footprint

A beverage producer wanted to eliminate one of their highly energy intensive waste processing steps, which would result in an increase in the COD load of the wastewater.

Macro Porous Polymer Extraction (MPPE) vs. Off Site Treatment

Carbon Footprint

The client, who produces thousands of tons of hazardous wastewater every year, desired an alternative to the existing method of removing the hazardous waste water by tanker truck and treating it off site, which was required 66 times per year.

MBBR Retrofit vs. New Nitrifying Biotower

Carbon Footprint

A municipal landfill in Pennsylvania, which treats leachate in a 30,000 gallons per day on-site treatment plant, required an upgrade to their system to meet their NPDES permit limit for ammonia.

Fort Myers WRF Life Cycle Carbon Footprint Evaluation

Carbon Footprint

The carbon footprint analysis was conducted considering both the embodied carbon for the construction and implementation of the alternatives as well as the operational equivalent CO2 emissions for power, methane (CH4) and N2O.

Hydrotech Discfilter vs. Conventional Sand Filters

Carbon Footprint

A carbon footprint analysis was performed comparing tertiary filtration technologies: the Kruger Hydrotech Discfilter and conventional sand filters.

BioCon® Energy Recovery System (ERS) vs. Rotary Drum Dryer vs. Aerobic Digestion with Land Application

Carbon Footprint

A carbon footprint analysis was performed comparing three biosolids treatment technologies: the Kruger BioCon ERS, a conventional natural gas fired dryer (with no post-incineration) and aerobic digestion for Class B biosolids (land application).

MBBR LagoonGuard® vs. Aerated Lagoon Expansion

Carbon Footprint

Two options were studied in order to meet new BOD effluent limits at this small WWTP: build additional lagoons or add an MBBR in a LagoonGuard® configuration.

Inclined HYDROVEX® Valve (IHV) vs. Actuated Gate Valve

Carbon Footprint

The carbon footprint of the Inclined HYDROVEX® Valve is 70 times smaller over 100 years than an actuated gate valve.

1| 2| 3| 4| 5| 6| 7| 8| 9

Share