DOCSLIB.ORG

Draft 2019 Water Conservation Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Draft 2019 Water Conservation Plan 2019 LCRA Raw Water Conservation Plan lcra.org 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 PURPOSE AND POLICY ...................................................................................................... 3 1.2 HISTORY OF LCRA WATER CONSERVATION ....................................................................... 3 1.3 2014 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN RESULTS..................................................................... 4 1.4 2019 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT ............................................................ 4 2.0 BASELINE PROFILE AND WATER CONSERVATION GOALS ...................................... 4 2.1 OVERVIEW OF LCRA WATER SERVICE AREA ...................................................................... 4 2.2 WATER USE ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Municipal Water Use ................................................................................................. 8 2.2.2 Irrigation and Recreation Water Use ......................................................................... 8 2.2.3 Industrial Water Use .................................................................................................. 8 2.2.4 Domestic and Temporary Water Use ........................................................................ 9 2.2.5 Agricultural Irrigation Water Use ............................................................................... 9 2.3 2019 WATER CONSERVATION GOALS ...............................................................................11 3.0 FIRM WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIES............................................................. 12 3.1 MONITORING AND RECORD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................12 3.2 MONITORING AND MEASURING WATER USE .......................................................................12 3.3 RESERVOIR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS PLAN ..........................................................................12 3.4 FIRM WATER CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS ..........................................................................13 3.5 WATER RATES ................................................................................................................13 3.6 CUSTOMER COST-SHARE PROGRAM .................................................................................13 3.7 END-USER CONSERVATION INCENTIVES ............................................................................13 3.8 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION EVALUATIONS ..............................................................................14 3.9 PUBLIC EDUCATION AND AWARENESS ...............................................................................14 3.10 SCHOOL EDUCATION ......................................................................................................15 3.11 LCRA FACILITIES ..........................................................................................................15 3.12 MUNICIPAL CUSTOMER MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS .......................................................16 3.13 CITY OF AUSTIN/LCRA WATER PARTNERSHIP .................................................................16 3.14 CONSERVATION RESEARCH AND VERIFICATION ................................................................16 4.0 AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION STRATEGIES ......................................... 17 4.1 MONITORING AND RECORDS MANAGEMENT STRATEGY .......................................................17 4.2 AGRICULTURAL WATER RATES .........................................................................................18 4.3 AUTOMATION AND MODERNIZATION OF GATES ...................................................................18 4.4 CANAL LINING ..................................................................................................................19 4.5 PRECISION LAND LEVELING ..............................................................................................19 5.0 WHOLESALE POWER GENERATION ........................................................................... 20 5.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................20 5.2 BASELINE PROFILE ..........................................................................................................20 5.2.1 Water Use ............................................................................................................... 22 5.2.2 Natural Evaporation ................................................................................................ 23 5.3 WATER CONSERVATION SAVINGS AND GOALS ....................................................................23 5.4 SYSTEM-WIDE CONSERVATION STRATEGIES ......................................................................24 1 5.4.1 LCRA POWERHOUSE Education Program ............................................................ 24 5.4.2 Metering and Leak Detection .................................................................................. 24 5.5 CONSERVATION PLANS FOR LCRA POWER PLANTS ...........................................................24 APPENDIX A ......................................................................................................................... 25 MUNICIPAL FIRM WATER CUSTOMER CONTRACTED USE – 2014-2018 ......................................25 IRRIGATION FIRM WATER CUSTOMER CONTRACTED USE – 2014-2018 .....................................27 INDUSTRIAL FIRM WATER CUSTOMER CONTRACTED USE – 2014-2018 .....................................28 APPENDIX B ......................................................................................................................... 29 LOST PINES POWER PLANT WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ........................................ 29 1.0 LOST PINES POWER PARK DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................29 2.0 LOST PINES POWER PARK WATER USE .............................................................................30 2.1 CONDENSER COOLING .....................................................................................................30 2.2 BOILER MAKEUP WATER ..................................................................................................31 2.3 EMPLOYEE SANITATION ....................................................................................................31 2.4 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION ...................................................................................................31 3.0 LOST PINES POWER PARK WATER CONSERVATION GOALS AND ..........................................32 STRATEGIES..........................................................................................................................32 APPENDIX C ......................................................................................................................... 33 FAYETTE POWER PROJECT WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ........................................ 33 1.0 FAYETTE POWER PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..........................................................................33 2.0 FAYETTE POWER PROJECT WATER USE ............................................................................33 2.1 CONDENSER COOLING .....................................................................................................34 2.2 STACK GAS SCRUBBERS ..................................................................................................34 2.3 INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER POND NATURAL EVAPORATION ..................................................34 2.4 BOILER SOOT BLOWING AND VENTS ..................................................................................35 2.5 FPP BOILER SEAL SYSTEMS AND BOTTOM ASH REMOVAL ..................................................35 2.6 PLANT WASH-DOWN SYSTEMS AND DUST SUPPRESSION ....................................................35 2.7 POTABLE WATER PURCHASES ..........................................................................................35 3.0 FAYETTE POWER PROJECT WATER CONSERVATION FEATURES AND STRATEGIES .................36 APPENDIX D ......................................................................................................................... 37 FERGUSON POWER PLANT WATER CONSERVATION PLAN ......................................... 37 1.0 FERGUSON POWER PLANT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................37 2.0 FERGUSON POWER PLANT WATER USE.............................................................................37 2.1 CONDENSER COOLING .................................................................................................... 37 2.2 BOILER MAKEUP WATER ....................................................................................................37 2.3 EMPLOYEE SANITATION ....................................................................................................38 2.4 LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION ...................................................................................................38 3.0 FERGUSON POWER PLANT WATER CONSERVATION GOALS AND STRATEGIES .......................38 2 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Policy The Lower Colorado River Authority serves customers and communities throughout Texas by managing the lower Colorado River; generating and transmitting electric power; providing a clean, reliable water supply; and offering
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fossil-Fuel Power Plant at Rush Island, Jefferson County, Missouri
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RUSH ISLAND POWER PLANT - UNITS 1 & 2 UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY BASIC DATA SUBMITTED BY UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY IN CONSULTATION WITH BECHTEL CORPORATION, WESTINGHOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, SMITH - SINGER METEOROLOGISTS, AND HARLAN BARTHOLOMEW AND ASSOCIATES PREPARED BY U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 24 NOVEMBER 1972 o / FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PROPOSED FOSSIL-FUEL POKER PLANT AT RUSH ISLAND JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSOURI Prepared By U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI 24 NOVEMBER 1972 PROPOSED FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANT RUSH ISLAND, JEFFERSON COUNTY, MISSOURI ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office; U. S. Army Engineer District, St. Louis, Missouri 1. Nare of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action; Processing of Department of the Army permit under 33 USC 403 for construction of a fossil-fuel power plant and appurtenant structures in and along the Mississippi River. 3a. Environmental Impacts: Conversion of approximately 150 acres o f flood plain land to industrial use, loss of public access route, release of products o f combustion and waste heat to the environment, consumption of approximately 2.5 million tons of coal per year. b. Adverse Environmental E ffects: Increase in concentrations of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter in the atmosphere, loss of some fish on plant Intake screens, loss of fish eggs and larvae carried through cooling system. 4. Alternatives: No project, purchasing power, alternate sites, alternate fuels, other cooling systems. 5. Comments Requested: Region VII, EPA, Kansas City, Mo. Mo. Water Resources Board Dept, of Interior, Washington, D.C. Mo. Clean Water Commission Dept, of Health, Education & Welfare, Mo.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Waste Disposal Crisis
    David A. Lochbaum o PennWell Publishing Company Tulsa, Oklahoma Copyright © 1996 by PennWell Publishing Company 1421 South Sheridan/Po O. Box 1260 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transcribed in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying and recording, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 00 99 98 97 96 • IV • Chapter 8 • I The NRC first evaluated the spent fuel risk in the Reactor Safety Study (RSS) released in October 1975. 1 The NRC had assumed that a spent fuel accident would only involve one-third of a reactor core's inventory, because the fuel assemblies discharged each refueling outage would be shipped offsite for repro­ cessing shortly thereafter. The NRC considered the spent fuel risk to be small compared to the risk from accidents involving the reactor core. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 compelled the NRC to release an environmental impact statement for spent fuel storage in August 1979. The NRC reaffirmed its conviction that the "storage of spent fuel in water pools is a well established technology, and under the static conditions of storage repre­ sents a low environmental impact and low potential risk to the health and safety of the public."2 The NRC recognized that certain actions had eroded the basis for its origi­ nal spent fuel risk analysis: after reprocessing was eliminated, utilities had expanded spent fuel storage capacities at nuclear power plants and disposal had been indefinitely deferred.
    [Show full text]
  • AERATION-BASIN HEAT LOSS by S. N. Talati1 and M. K. Stenstrom,2 Member, ASCE
    AERATION-BASIN HEAT LOSS By S. N. Talati1 and M. K. Stenstrom,2 Member, ASCE ABSTRACT: Recent developments in wastewater aeration systems have focused on aeration efficiency and minimum energy cost. Many other operating characteristics are ignored. The impact of aeration system alternatives on aeration-basin temper­ ature can be substantial, and design engineers should include potential effects in evaluation of alternatives. To predict aeration-basin temperature and its influence on system design, previous research has been surveyed and a spreadsheet-based computer model has been developed. Calculation has been improved significantly in the areas of heat loss from evaporation due to aeration and atmospheric radia­ tion. The model was verified with 17 literature-data sets, and predicts temperature with a root-mean-squared (RMS) error of 1.24° C for these sets. The model can be used to predict aeration basin temperature for plants at different geographical locations with varying meteorological conditions for surface, subsurface, and high- purity aeration systems. The major heat loss is through evaporation from aeration, accounting for as much as 50%. Heat loss from surface aerators can be twice that • of an equivalent subsurface system. Wind speed and ambient humidity are im­ portant parameters in determining aeration-basin temperature. INTRODUCTION The recent emphasis on high-efficiency, low-energy consumption aeration systems has increased the use of fine-bubble, subsurface aeration systems, almost to the exclusion of all other types. Design engineers are choosing this technology over others because of very low energy costs. A factor that is usually not considered is heat loss. Different types of aeration systems can have very different heat losses, which result in different aeration-basin temperatures.
    [Show full text]
  • Damage Cases and Environmental Releases from Mines and Mineral Processing Sites
    DAMAGE CASES AND ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES FROM MINES AND MINERAL PROCESSING SITES 1997 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC 20460 Contents Table of Contents INTRODUCTION Discussion and Summary of Environmental Releases and Damages ......................... Page 1 Methodology for Developing Environmental Release Cases ............................... Page 19 ARIZONA ASARCO Silver Bell Mine: "Waste and Process Water Discharges Contaminate Three Washes and Ground Water" ................................................... Page 24 Cyprus Bagdad Mine: "Acidic, Copper-Bearing Solution Seeps to Boulder Creek" ................................ Page 27 Cyprus Twin Buttes Mine: "Tank Leaks Acidic Metal Solution Resulting in Possible Soil and Ground Water Contamination" ...................................... Page 29 Magma Copper Mine: "Broken Pipeline Seam Causes Discharge to Pinal Creek" ................................ Page 31 Magma Copper Mine: "Multiple Discharges of Polluted Effluents Released to Pinto Creek and Its Tributaries" .................................................... Page 33 Magma Copper Mine: "Multiple Overflows Result in Major Fish Kill in Pinto Creek" ............................... Page 36 Magma Copper Mine: "Repeated Release of Tailings to Pinto Creek" .......................................... Page 39 Phelps Dodge Morenci Mine: "Contaminated Storm Water Seeps to Ground Water and Surface Water" ................................................................ Page 43 Phelps Dodge
    [Show full text]
  • Cost Model and Feasibility Study. by Philippe Lucien Dintrans
    NOTICE: THIS MAItiAL MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW (TITLE 17 U.S. CODE) SOLAR PONDS FOR ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION: COST MODEL AND FEASIBILITY STUDY. BY PHILIPPE LUCIEN DINTRANS B.S., Swarthmore College tMechanical Engineering, 1983) B.A., Swarthmore College (Economics and Public Policy, 19o3) Submitted in Partial k ulfiilment of the Requirements for the Degree of XASTER OF SCIENCE at the MAS SACHUTSETTS INSTITUTE OF TBECHNOLCGY @ Massacnhusetts Institute of Technology The author hereby reats M.I.T. permission to reproduce and to distribute copies of this thesis document in whole or in part. Signature of Author __ • Departmed of Civil Engineering, September 1, 1964. 1' Certified by Professor D.H. Marks Thesis Supervisor Accepted by Professor Franccis Morel Chairman, Civil Engineering Dept. Committee I 2 SOLAR PONDS FOR ELECTRIC POWER GENERATION: COST MODEL AND •EASIBILITY STUDY. BY PHILIPPE LUCIEN DINIRANS Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the hequirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE ABSTRACT This research stuay exanines tre construction and 'easibility of solar ponds for electric power eneration. The obnective of tais tesis is to snow tnat ene cosetign ofr soLar opona electric power facilities as well as the Z'inancial and regulatory environment of tne electric uuility i•nustry provides little or no incentive to invest in =nisruel conserving technology A cost model is presented ti explore tee different cost staucture that solar ponds may nave and to examine whicn structure and construction scenario would ennance tniis effectiveness in the eyes of the electric utility industry. To quantify these costs, a 50 MW case study is developed to snow that the primary drawback of solar ponds is their cost.
    [Show full text]
  • Heat Transfer in Outdoor Aquaculture Ponds Jonathan Lamoureux Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected]
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Master's Theses Graduate School 2003 Heat transfer in outdoor aquaculture ponds Jonathan Lamoureux Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses Part of the Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Lamoureux, Jonathan, "Heat transfer in outdoor aquaculture ponds" (2003). LSU Master's Theses. 937. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_theses/937 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Master's Theses by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HEAT TRANSFER IN OUTDOOR AQUACULTURE PONDS A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Biological and Agricultural Engineering in The Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering by Jonathan Lamoureux B.S. (Ag. Eng.) McGill University, 2001 August 2003 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The presented research was supported in part by funding from the USDA, the Louisiana Catfish Promotion and Research Board, the Louisiana College Sea Grant Program, and the LSU Agricultural Center. I would like to thank all the people at the farm (Fernando, Daisy, Christie, Akos, Tyler, Roberto, Brian, Amogh, Jamie, Patricio, Mike, Jay, Vernon, Dr. Romaire, Dr. Hargreaves) for being such gracious hosts, for helping me either with my work, or in keeping my spirits up. I would especially like to thank Patrice, who was a great partner and a good friend, for standing by me throughout my struggles with wells, automated valves, fiberglass and other demons.
    [Show full text]
  • Thermal Pollution: a Potential Threat to Our Aquatic Environment James E
    Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 1 | Issue 2 Article 4 6-1-1971 Thermal Pollution: A Potential Threat to Our Aquatic Environment James E. A John Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr Part of the Environmental Law Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation James E. John, Thermal Pollution: A Potential Threat to Our Aquatic Environment, 1 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 287 (1971), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/ealr/vol1/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THERMAL POLLUTION: A POTENTIAL THREAT TO OUR AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT By 'James E. A. 'John-:' INTRODUCTION Thermal pollution has come to mean the detrimental effects of unnatural temperature changes in a natural body of water, caused by the discharge of industrial cooling water. The electric power industry accounts for over 80% of the cooling water used, so this discussion will focus mainly on that industry. So great are the electric power requirements of this nation and the resultant need for cooling water, it is estimated that at certain times of year, the electric power utilities require 50% of the total fresh water runoff for cooling. At the present time, roughly 85% of the electric power in this country is produced by steam power plants, the remainder by hydroelectric plants.
    [Show full text]
  • AGWS3623 06.Pdf
    Longmont factory, sugar bins and stack. Fremont, Ohio, factory from Fairgrounds Hill. Around the Territory Factory views during the last campaign Bare branches frame Scottsbluff sugar bins, stack, and water tower. .1Iore ca1111>aign .~c·enrs on vage ,11. THE COVER Eaton factory, in a view f rom th<' road on the south sicle of the mill, 1cith bricks and branches vresenting a l e;rturecl pattern in the winter sunshine. All by way of introducing a nen: feature-"1'he Jfill of the Month"­ beginning in this issu<' on Page 10. cmd featuring Eaton. THE S UGAR PRESS ASSOCIATE EDITORS G. N. CANNADY, Ovid P. W. SNYDER, Scottsbluff Published Monthly by the Employees of C. W. SEIFFERT, Gering The Great Western Sugar Company, Denver, Colorado A. J. STEWART, Bayard BOB McKEE, Mitchell DOROTHY COOPER, Lyman JANUARY, 195 7 JACK K. RUNGE, Billings BESSIE ROSS, Lovell LOIS E. LANG, Horse Cree~ RICHARD L. WILLIS, Fremont In This Issue • • • WARREN D. BOWSER, Findlay Mitchell Wins the Pennant! 4 DORIS SMITH, Eaton H ere's how .ll itcheU lea tlle field in fo1tr tov viaces of the race. MARY E. VORIS, Greeley PAUL P. BROWN, Windsor Findlay Points the Way ................................. ................................................ 6 F. H. DEY, Fort Collins A vrogress re])ort by C. H. I verson on the new 1caste ciisvosal .~ystem. BOB LOHR, Loveland Fire at Bi]]ings ................................................................................................ .. 9 RALPH R. PRICE, Longmont In 1>icturc11, the s2.;o.ooo 1carelunise fire at the Billings factory. LOUISE WEBBER, Experiment Station lVIill of the Month ............................................................................................ 10 IRENE DURLAND, Brighton The first of a new series, this ti1ne feahtring Eaton, with 1>ictures.
    [Show full text]
  • August 8, 2005 Jeffrey S. Forbes Vice President Operations Arkansas
    August 8, 2005 Jeffrey S. Forbes Vice President Operations Arkansas Nuclear One Entergy Operations, Inc. 1448 S.R. 333 Russellville, AR 72801-0967 SUBJECT: ARKANSAS NUCLEAR ONE, UNITS 1 AND 2 - NRC SAFETY SYSTEM DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE CAPABILITY INSPECTION REPORT 0500313/2005008; 0500368/2005008 Dear Mr. Forbes: On June 24, 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) completed an inspection at your Arkansas Nuclear One, Units 1 and 2, facility. The enclosed Safety System Design and Performance Capability inspection report documents the findings, which were discussed with you and other members of your staff at the conclusion of the inspection. This inspection examined activities conducted under your license as they relate to safety and compliance with the Commission’s rules and regulations and with the conditions of your license. The team reviewed selected procedures and records, observed activities and interviewed personnel. The report documents four findings that were evaluated under the risk significance determination process as having very low safety significance (Green). The NRC has also determined that violations were associated with three of these findings. The violations are being treated as noncited violations because they are of very low safety significance and because they have been entered into your corrective action program consistent with Section VI.A of the Enforcement Policy. If you contest the violations or the significance of these noncited violations, you should provide a response within 30 days of the date of the inspection report, with the basis for your denial, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulator Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, DC 20555-0001, with copies to the Regional Administrator, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Transcript of 721207 Hearing in Croton-On-Hudson,NY. Pp 6,875
    '~~~guIatory File C UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: I IN .2 1.;' Place Date - Thnsda, 7 11 17 Pages9T - DUPLICATION OR COPYING OF THIS TRANSCRIPT BY PHOTOGRAPHIC, ELECTROSTATIC OR OTHER FACSIMILE MEANS IS PROHIBITED BY THE ORDER FORM AGREEMENT Telephone: (Code 202) 547-6222 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 0 Official Reporters 415 Second Street, N.E. Washington, D. C. 20002 NATIONWIDEUEGLU37 COVERAGE A~izu:py \'g. Gf375 d UNITED STA.ET OF AR..A ATO ¢l ' .' 4B-GY... C TSI'I3, - - - a -. C Ca - -. - a. CC a. In the m..tter of CONSOLIDTD EDISON COMPP2 OF 1~3Ck~t NOC $0.-247 9 NEW yoa,a INC. 2 6 .(Indian Point st"' v°°" tNO Croton--nHudson New York I 9 1972 Th r day,, 7 DeCCMKJr 5 IZ rmnt, at 9 00 a m. eco e'ed, pilriavant to adjou •BEFORE , Csq. -satet .lAtomit 5k'MUEL W JENSCHO and Licensing Board. DR. JOHN C. GY1R, member. .R' R. B. BRSGGS, Member. I' 17 APPEAWAKNESt is the following chang heretofore noted+ with (As Y. St. , AlbanY, N. 19 BRUCEB L. o MITIND 112 State MR, Energy Council of on behalf of the Atomic York - NOT PRESENT 20 tThi Ste.te or New I AttorneyV onGenera beha Lf MR. JAES CORCORAN , AssistantS.. teStateof Nework- --. &.... ? 11 of: thme State of New York -,pR'ESENT :.,3 21 4 5 I I 6876 P GeckleK 4 Robe G Moishe Si ,an-.Tov 7 Charles N.oCartor 8 Mary Jana OeotDa~n 9 ~Wlliam Yee 6928 Charles Couthm-t 15 I 20 I.W 5 I 6s77 dd #i O.C E E D I N G S, 0 m P R Please.
    [Show full text]
  • Methods to Reduce Or Avoid Thermal Impacts to Surface Water
    METHODS TO REDUCE OR AVOID THERMAL IMPACTS TO SURFACE WATER A MANUAL FOR SMALL MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS Prepared by Skillings Connolly, Inc. 5016 Lacey Blvd SE, Lacey, WA 98503 Prepared for Washington Department of Ecology Water Quality Program June 2007 Ecology Publication # 07-10-088 This page was intentionally left blank. This page was intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................1 1.1 Purpose..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Need ......................................................................................................................2 1.3 Organization of Report .........................................................................................2 2.0 Why Temperature Is Important.................................................................................3 2.1 Water.....................................................................................................................3 2.2 Temperature and Aquatic Habitat.........................................................................3 2.3 Regulatory Background........................................................................................4 2.4 Washington’s Temperature Water Quality Standards ..........................................5 2.5 Sources of Additional Information .......................................................................7
    [Show full text]
  • NUREG-0693, "Analysis of Ultimate Heat Sink Cooling Ponds."
    NUREG-0693 Analysis of Ultimate Heat Sink Cooling Ponds R. Codell, W. K. Nuttle Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Available from GPO Sal es Program Division of Technical Information and Document Control S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. Washington, C. D. 20555 and National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 NUREG-0693 Analysis of Ultimate Heat Sink Cooling Ponds Manuscript Completed: July 1980 Date Published: November 1980 R. Codell, W. K. Nuttle Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20656 ABSTRACT A method to analyze the performance of ultimate heat sink cooling pond s is presented. A simple mathematical model of a cooling pond is used to scan weather data to determine the period of the record for which the most adverse pond temperature or rate of evaporation would occur . Once the most adverse conditions have been determined, the peak pond temperature can be calculated . Several simple mathematical models of ponds are described; these could be used to determine peak pond temperature, using the identified meteorological record . Evaporative water loss may be found directly from the scanning a simp le and conservative heat-and-material balance . by Methodology by which short periods of onsite data can compared with offsite records developed , so that the adequacy ofbe th e offsite datalonger pond performance iscomputations can be established . for iii CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT.. .. .. i ii . .. .. x SYMBO LS. i I NTRODUCT I ON. 1. 1 2. HEAT AND TRANSFER RELATIONSHIPS IN PONDS.................... MASS 3 2.1 Equil ibrium Temperature Heat Transfer Model................
    [Show full text]