DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report .......................................................1-1 1.2 Environmental Review Process ......................................................................................1-1 1.3 Report Organization........................................................................................................1-2 CHAPTER 2. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ..........................................................................2-1 2.1 Master Responses ...........................................................................................................2-1 2.2 Individual Comments and Responses...........................................................................2-15 2.2.1 Solar Utilities Company...................................................................................2-16 2.2.2 Santa Cruz County ...........................................................................................2-22 2.2.3 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service ..............................................................................................2-25 2.2.4 Soquel Creek Water District ............................................................................2-29 2.2.5 Sierra Club .......................................................................................................2-41 2.2.6 Department of Health Services ........................................................................2-51 2.2.7 Department of Fish and Game .........................................................................2-68 2.2.8 University of California, Santa Cruz................................................................2-74 2.2.9 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District .....................................2-78 2.2.10 Joshua P. Assink...............................................................................................2-81 2.2.11 Andrew Schiffrin..............................................................................................2-84 2.2.12 Andrew Schiffrin............................................................................................2-100 2.2.13 Kristi Bittner...................................................................................................2-103 2.2.14 Coalition on Responsible Desalination ..........................................................2-106 2.2.15 Andrew Schiffrin............................................................................................2-137 2.2.16 Jim Warner .....................................................................................................2-139 2.3 Comments from Meetings and Responses..................................................................2-141 2.3.1 SCWD IWP DEIR Public Meeting (June 30, 2005) ......................................2-142 2.3.2 Water Commission Meeting (July 11, 2005) .................................................2-152 2.3.3 Integrated Water Plan PEIR Advisory Committee Meeting (July 21, 2005).2-156 2.3.4 Integrated Water Plan Draft PEIR Public Hearing (July 26, 2005) ...............2-161 2.4 Comments Received After the End of the Comment Period and Responses .............2-163 2.4.1 California Coastal Commission .....................................................................2-164 2.4.2 Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.....................................................2-177 CHAPTER 3. TEXT REVISIONS ..................................................................................................3-1 3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Text Revisions................................................................................................................3-1 Chapter 1. Summary ......................................................................................................3-1 Chapter 4. Program Description ....................................................................................3-4 Chapter 5. Environmental Evaluation............................................................................3-6 Chapter 6. Growth Inducement and Secondary Effects of Growth .............................3-10 Chapter 7. Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................3-11 Chapter 8. Alternatives ................................................................................................3-17 Santa Cruz Water Department Integrated Water Plan Final EIR i EDAW, Inc. Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT This report has been prepared to accompany the Draft Program EIR for the Santa Cruz Water Department Integrated Water Plan. The Draft Program EIR identified the environmental consequences associated with construction and operation of the potential Program, and recommended mitigation measures to reduce significant and potentially significant impacts. This document responds to the comments on the Draft Program EIR and makes revisions to the Draft Program EIR, as necessary, in response to these comments. Together with the Draft Program EIR, this document constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed Program. The Final EIR is an informational document prepared by the lead agency that must be considered by decision-makers before approving or denying a proposed program. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15132) specify the following: The Final EIR shall consist of: (a) The Draft Program EIR or a revision of the draft. (b) Comments and recommendation received on the Draft Program EIR, either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft Program EIR. (d) The response of the lead agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. (e) Any other information added by the lead agency. 1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS On June 10, 2005, the City of Santa Cruz (lead agency) released the Integrated Water Plan Draft Program EIR for public review (State Clearinghouse No. 2003102140). The public review and comment period on the Draft Program EIR began on June 10, 2005 and closed on July 29, 2005. The City of Santa Cruz City Council is scheduled to consider certifying the Final EIR (a finding that the EIR complies with the requirements of CEQA) at a regularly scheduled Council meeting on November 8, 2005. Following EIR certification, the City Council may proceed with consideration of Program approval actions. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15087, the City provided a Notice of Availability notifying the public of the publication of the Draft EIR. This notice was mailed to the individuals and organizations who previously requested such notice in writing. Additional notification was provided through the publication of a notice in the Santa Cruz Sentinel on June, 10, 2005. Santa Cruz Water Department Integrated Water Plan Final EIR 1-1 EDAW, Inc. 1. INTRODUCTION During the 45-day public comment period, four meetings were held to discuss the proposed Program and receive comments on the Draft Program EIR. The dates, time, and place of these meetings were initially identified in the publicly-circulated Notice of Availability of the Program EIR, and subsequently identified at the beginning of each meeting. The meetings were as follows: Integrated Water Plan (IWP) Public Meeting – June 30, 2005 IWP Water Commission Meeting – July 11, 2005 IWP pEIR Advisory Committee Meeting – July 21, 2005 IWP Public Hearing – July 26, 2005 1.3 REPORT ORGANIZATION Chapter 2 of this Response to Comments on the Draft Program EIR document contains copies of comments (letters and meeting notes) received during the comment period followed by the City’s responses to those comments. Each comment is alphanumerically coded in the margin of the comment letter, based on the initials assigned for each letter (see Table 1-2 below) and the order of the comments. For example, the first comment in the letter from the California Coastal Commission is CCC-1. Where a response includes a change to the text of the Draft Program EIR, a reference is made to Chapter 3, which contains corrections and clarifications made to the Draft Program EIR text. A number of comments were received on issues ranging from relationship of the proposed Program to the City’s existing water supplies to alternatives evaluation. Four master responses have been prepared in response to issues that elicited numerous comments. These master responses are shown in Table 1-1, below, and presented in Section 2.1. Table 1-1 Master Responses Included In This EIR Master Comments # Issue 1 Existing Water Supply Conditions and Other Ongoing Water Supply Planning Issues 2 Growth 3 Alternatives 4 Cost Table 1-2 is a list of all persons and organizations that submitted comments on the Draft Program EIR during the comment period, the date of the letters, and the initials used to identify each letter. It should be noted that two agency letters (California Coastal Commission and MBNMS) were received after the close of the comment period; however, as the proposed Program would be within the jurisdictions of these agencies, their comments have been included and responses have been prepared. Santa Cruz Water Department Integrated Water
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nuclear Power Plant Organization and Staffing for Lessons Learned
    IAEA-TECDOC-1052 minium XA9848504 Nuclear power plant organization staffingand for improved performance: lessons learned INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY fl/U Lr\^ The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Power Engineering Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria NUCLEAR POWER PLANT ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING FOR IMPROVED PERFORMANCE: LESSONS LEARNED IAEA, VIENNA, 1998 IAEA-TECDOC-1052 ISSN 1011-4289 ©IAEA, 1998 Printe IAEe th AustriAn y i d b a November 1998 The IAEA does not normally maintain stocks of reports in this series. However, microfiche copies of these reports can be obtained from INIS Clearinghouse International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramerstrasse5 0 10 P.Ox Bo . A-1400 Vienna, Austria Orders shoul accompaniee db prepaymeny db f Austriao t n Schillings 100, fore for e chequa th f mth IAEmf o n i n o i r eAo microfiche service coupons which may be ordered separately from the INIS Clearinghouse. FOREWORD Experience from well operated nuclear power plants (NPPs) aroun worle dth d indicates that an organizational structure that effectively supports plant operation s i essentias n i l economically achieving high level f safet so operationa d yan l performance same th t e A .time , in many Member States, energy market e beinar s g opene o competitiont d n i s i t I . consideration of this new competitive energy market that this publication focuses on organization and staffing of NPPs to improve efficiency and effectiveness. This publication is primarily intended for senior NPP and utility managers.
    [Show full text]
  • 038 12 Conduct of Operations
    TMI-1 UFSAR CHAPTER 12 – CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE 12.0 CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS 12.1 ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 12.1.1 OFFSITE ORGANIZATION 12.1.2 OPERATING ORGANIZATION 12.1.2.1 PLANT DIVISION 12.1.2.1.1 OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.2 MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.3 WORK MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.4 RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.1.5 CHEMISTRY DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.2 SECURITY DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.3 SITE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.3.1 PLANT ENGINEERING SECTION 12.1.2.3.2 DESIGN ENGINEERING SECTION 12.1.2.3.3 PROGRAMS SECTION 12.1.2.4 TRAINING DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.5 BUSINESS OPERATIONS DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.6 REGULATORY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT 12.1.2.7 MANAGER – HUMAN RESOURCES 12.1.2.8 PROJECT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 12.1.3 QUALIFICATION OF NUCLEAR PLANT PERSONNEL 12.1.4 SAFETY REVIEWS 12.2 TRAINING 12.2.1 TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.2 TECHNICAL TRAINING 12.2.2.1 MAINTENANCE TRAINING 12.2.2.2 RADIOLOGICAL CONTROLS/CHEMISTRY TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.3 OPERATIONS TRAINING 12.2.3.1 REPLACEMENT OPERATOR TRAINING PROGRAM (AO/CRO/SRO) 12.2.3.2 LICENSED OPERATOR REQUALIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM (CRO/SRO) 12.2.3.3 SHIFT TECHNICAL ADVISOR (STA) TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.3.4 AUXILIARY OPERATOR (AO) REQUALIFICATION TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.4 TRAINING SUPPORT 12.2.4.1 GENERAL EMPLOYEE TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.4.2 FIRE PROTECTION TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.4.3 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TRAINING PROGRAMS 12.2.4.4 NOT USED 12.2.5 ENGINEERING SUPPORT PERSONNEL (ESP)TRAINING PROGRAM 12.2.6 TRAINING RECORDS CHAPTER 12 12-i REV.
    [Show full text]
  • Of Operation and Control Ion-Exchange Processes For
    TECHNICAL REPORTS SERIES No. 78 Operation and Control Of Ion-Exchange Processes for Treatment of Radioactive Wastes INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY,VIENNA, 1967 OPERATION AND CONTROL OF ION-EXCHANGE PROCESSES FOR TREATMENT OF RADIOACTIVE WASTES The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GERMANY, FEDERAL NIGERIA ALBANIA REPUBLIC OF NORWAY ALGERIA GHANA PAKISTAN ARGENTINA GREECE PANAMA AUSTRALIA GUATEMALA PARAGUAY AUSTRIA HAITI PERU BELGIUM HOLY SEE PHILIPPINES BOLIVIA HUNGARY POLAND BRAZIL ICELAND PORTUGAL BULGARIA INDIA ROMANIA BURMA INDONESIA SAUDI ARABIA BYELORUSSIAN SOVIET IRAN SENEGAL SOCIALIST REPUBLIC IRAQ SIERRA LEONE CAMBODIA ISRAEL SINGAPORE CAMEROON ITALY SOUTH AFRICA CANADA IVORY COAST SPAIN CEYLON JAMAICA SUDAN CHILE JAPAN SWEDEN CHINA JORDAN SWITZERLAND COLOMBIA KENYA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC CONGO, DEMOCRATIC KOREA, REPUBLIC OF THAILAND REPUBLIC OF KUWAIT TUNISIA COSTA RICA LEBANON TURKEY CUBA LIBERIA UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST CYPRUS LIBYA REPUBLIC CZECHOSLOVAK SOCIALIST LUXEMBOURG UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC MADAGASCAR REPUBLICS DENMARK MALI UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MEXICO UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT ECUADOR MONACO BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND EL SALVADOR MOROCCO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ETHIOPIA NETHERLANDS URUGUAY FINLAND NEW ZEALAND VENEZUELA FRANCE NICARAGUA VIET-NAM GABON YUGOSLAVIA The Agency's Statute was approved on 26 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957, The Headquarters of the Agency are situated in Vienna. Its principal objective is "to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world". © IAEA, 1967 Permission to reproduce or translate the information contained in this publication may be obtained by writing to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Kamtner Ring 11, A-1010 Vienna I, Austria.
    [Show full text]
  • Upgrading Water Treatment Plants
    Upgrading Water Treatment Plants E. G. Wagner and R. G. Pinheiro ISBN 0-419-26050-1 (pbk) 0-419-26040-4 Published on behalf of the WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION London and New York First published 2001 by Spon Press 11 New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Spon Press 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001 Spon Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group © 2001 World Health Organization The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this publication. Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. The publisher makes no representation, express or implied, with regard to the accuracy of the information contained in this book and cannot accept any legal responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions that may be made. Publisher's Note This book has been prepared from camera-ready copy provided by the authors. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data A catalogue record has been requested Foreword The availability of safe water, and in particular safe drinking water, has been an area of concern to the World Health Organization for many years.
    [Show full text]
  • Configuration Management in Nuclear Power Plants
    IAEA-TECDOC-1335 Configuration management in nuclear power plants January 2003 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Nuclear Power Engineering Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria CONFIGURATION MANAGEMENT IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS IAEA, VIENNA, 2003 IAEA-TECDOC-1335 ISBN 92–0–100503–2 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2003 Printed by the IAEA in Austria January 2003 FOREWORD Configuration management (CM) is the process of identifying and documenting the characteristics of a facility’s structures, systems and components of a facility, and of ensuring that changes to these characteristics are properly developed, assessed, approved, issued, implemented, verified, recorded and incorporated into the facility documentation. The need for a CM system is a result of the long term operation of any nuclear power plant. The main challenges are caused particularly by ageing plant technology, plant modifications, the application of new safety and operational requirements, and in general by human factors arising from migration of plant personnel and possible human failures. The IAEA Incident Reporting System (IRS) shows that on average 25% of recorded events could be caused by configuration errors or deficiencies. CM processes correctly applied ensure that the construction, operation, maintenance and testing of a physical facility are in accordance with design requirements as expressed in the design documentation. An important objective of a configuration management program is to ensure that accurate information consistent with the physical and operational characteristics of the power plant is available in a timely manner for making safe, knowledgeable, and cost effective decisions with confidence.
    [Show full text]
  • Facilities Operations Manual
    U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Prisons P R O G R A M S T A T E M E N T OPI: ADM/FAC NUMBER: 4200.11 DATE: April 12, 2016 Facilities Operations Manual /s/ Approved: Thomas R. Kane Acting Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons 1. PURPOSE AND SCOPE Since the Manual’s last edition, operations have been changed and new policies developed to improve organizational efficiency. This edition incorporates individual duties of Facilities Management staff, makes changes reflecting new laws and regulations, and consolidates Bureau directives regarding physical plant maintenance and operations. a. Summary of Changes Policy Rescinded P4200.10 Facilities Operations Manual (1/24/2006) This Program Statement incorporates changes in the areas listed below: ■ Rewrite of Chapter 1, Facilities Administration and Organization ■ Rewrite of Chapter 2, Work Programming, Scheduling and Reporting ■ Rewrite of Chapter 3, Buildings and Facilities Projects ■ Rewrite of Chapter 4, Architect-Engineer Services ■ Rewrite of Chapter 5, Preventive Maintenance/Inspections ■ Rewrite, renaming, and renumbering of Chapter 6, Automated Systems and Document Control ■ Rewrite and renaming of Chapter 7, Life Safety/Fire Protection ■ Rewrite and renaming of Chapter 8, Environmental ■ Rewrite of Chapter 9, Telecommunication Systems and Electronic Equipment ■ Rewrite and renaming of Chapter 10, Vehicle Fleet ■ Rewrite of Chapter 11, Mechanical Systems and Power Plant Operations ■ Rewrite of Chapter 12, Electrical Systems ■ Rewrite of Chapter 13, Physical Plant Review Program ■ Rewrite of Chapter 14, Plumbing Systems ■ Rewrite of Chapter 15, Accessibility ■ Rewrite, renaming, and renumbering of Chapter 16, Energy/Water Conservation and Greenhouse Gas ■ Rewrite of Chapter 17, Historic Preservation b.
    [Show full text]
  • Fundamentals of Nuclear Power
    Fundamentals of Nuclear Power Juan S. Giraldo Douglas J. Gotham David G. Nderitu Paul V. Preckel Darla J. Mize State Utility Forecasting Group December 2012 Table of Contents List of Figures .................................................................................................................................. iii List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... iv Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................................... v Glossary ........................................................................................................................................... vi Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ vii 1. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Current state of nuclear power generation in the U.S. ......................................... 1 1.2 Nuclear power around the world ........................................................................... 4 2. Nuclear Energy .................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 How nuclear power plants generate electricity ..................................................... 9 2.2 Radioactive decay .................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • IS IT WORTH ITS SALT? a Primer on Brackish and Seawater Desalination
    DESALINATION: IS IT WORTH ITS SALT? A Primer on Brackish and Seawater Desalination Photo by Cynthia L. Douglas LONE STAR CHAPTER DESALINATION: IS IT WORTH ITS SALT? A Primer on Brackish and Seawater Desalination by Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club December 2008 LONE STAR CHAPTER P.O. Box 193l Austin, TX 78767-1931 (512) 477-1729 [email protected] http://texas.sierraclub.org Table of Contents: Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................................v Context...............................................................................................................................................................vi THE DESALINATION PROCESS .........................................................................................................1 ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ........................................................................................................5 BRINE DISPOSAL......................................................................................................................................5 IMPINGEMENT AND ENTRAINMENT ...........................................................................................8 HEALTH CONCERNS..............................................................................................................................9 INCREASED ENERGY USE...................................................................................................................9 OTHER IMPACTS....................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Information Technology for Nuclear Power Plant Configuration Management
    IAEA-TECDOC-1651 Information Technology for Nuclear Power Plant Configuration Management Information Technology for Nuclear Power Plant Configuration Management IAEA-TECDOC-1651 The following States are Members of the International Atomic Energy Agency: AFGHANISTAN GHANA NORWAY ALBANIA GREECE OMAN ALGERIA GUATEMALA PAKISTAN ANGOLA HAITI PALAU ARGENTINA HOLY SEE PANAMA ARMENIA HONDURAS PARAGUAY AUSTRALIA HUNGARY PERU AUSTRIA ICELAND PHILIPPINES AZERBAIJAN INDIA POLAND BAHRAIN INDONESIA PORTUGAL BANGLADESH IRAN, ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF QATAR BELARUS IRAQ REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA BELGIUM IRELAND ROMANIA BELIZE ISRAEL RUSSIAN FEDERATION BENIN ITALY SAUDI ARABIA BOLIVIA JAMAICA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA JAPAN SENEGAL BOTSWANA JORDAN SERBIA BRAZIL KAZAKHSTAN SEYCHELLES BULGARIA KENYA SIERRA LEONE BURKINA FASO KOREA, REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE BURUNDI KUWAIT SLOVAKIA CAMBODIA KYRGYZSTAN SLOVENIA CAMEROON LATVIA SOUTH AFRICA CANADA LEBANON SPAIN CENTRAL AFRICAN LESOTHO SRI LANKA REPUBLIC LIBERIA SUDAN CHAD LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA SWEDEN CHILE LIECHTENSTEIN SWITZERLAND CHINA LITHUANIA SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC COLOMBIA LUXEMBOURG TAJIKISTAN CONGO MADAGASCAR THAILAND COSTA RICA MALAWI THE FORMER YUGOSLAV CÔTE D’IVOIRE MALAYSIA REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA CROATIA MALI TUNISIA CUBA MALTA TURKEY CYPRUS MARSHALL ISLANDS UGANDA CZECH REPUBLIC MAURITANIA UKRAINE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC MAURITIUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES OF THE CONGO MEXICO UNITED KINGDOM OF DENMARK MONACO GREAT BRITAIN AND DOMINICAN REPUBLIC MONGOLIA NORTHERN IRELAND ECUADOR MONTENEGRO EGYPT MOROCCO UNITED REPUBLIC EL SALVADOR MOZAMBIQUE OF TANZANIA ERITREA MYANMAR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ESTONIA NAMIBIA URUGUAY ETHIOPIA NEPAL UZBEKISTAN FINLAND NETHERLANDS VENEZUELA FRANCE NEW ZEALAND VIETNAM GABON NICARAGUA YEMEN GEORGIA NIGER ZAMBIA GERMANY NIGERIA ZIMBABWE The Agency’s Statute was approved on 23 October 1956 by the Conference on the Statute of the IAEA held at United Nations Headquarters, New York; it entered into force on 29 July 1957.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Treatment Boilers Requirements
    Royal Belgian Institute of Marine Engineers Water Treatment Boilers Requirements Water treatment is required to provide the physical plant with properly treated water in sufficient quantities to meet plant needs. All system require water treatment by using speciality chemicals such as corrosion and scale inhibitors , however open systems require constant water treatment to deal with the constant need for treated water to make-up for system losses of often up to 100%. Closed systems also require water treatment, but due to minimal system losses, that treatment commonly occurs only at the system fill source. Industrial water treatment for cooling water systems , water treatment boiler requires advanced water technologies ,keeping in mind chemistry of water and use of advanced formulations of corrosion and scale inhibitors . Three tools can be used to improve water quality: • Internal Treatment – conditioning the boiler water to pre-determined levels by using a variety of chemicals. • Demineralization/ Reverse Osmosis / Electrodialysis - the replacement of specific inorganic salts by ion exchange. • Deaeration – the removal of dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide by heating and atomizing the water with steam. While demineralization and deaeration can be accomplished easily by investment in the appropriate support equipment, internal treatment calls for a more concerted effort. However, most organizations large enough to have in-house maintenance will find that the combination of these three tools will more than pay for themselves in defrayed operating costs. A well-implemented program will ensure - • Increased heat transfer • Lower fuel expenditures • Lower chemical consumption Except for steam trap maintenance, water treatment has the most potential for reducing annual operating costs in a power plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Fluoride-Salt Cooled High Temperature Reactors (FHR)
    Fluoride-Salt Cooled High Temperature Reactors (FHR) Raluca O. Scarlat Nuclear Engineering, UW Madison [email protected] | HEATandMASS.ep.wisc.edu Engineering Physics Colloquium UW Madison 21 April 2015 FOR PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION Outline 1. Overview of FHR technology 2. Tritium management in the FHR 3. Tritium transport in the salt-graphite system 4. Salt freezing and overcooling transients 5. Future work Raluca Scarlat | HEATandMASS.ep.wisc.edu 2 FHRs: Solid Fuel, Salt Cooled Reactors Liquid fluoride salt coolants Coated particle fuel Excellent heat transfer (TRISO Fuel) Transparent, clean fluoride salt Boiling point ~1400ºC Reacts very slowly in air No energy source to pressurize containment But high freezing temperature (459oC) And industrial safety required for Be FHRs have uniquely large fuel thermal margin Raluca Scarlat | HEATandMASS.ep.wisc.edu 3 900 MWth 400 MWth PB-FHR PBMR Nuclear Air-Brayton Combined Cycle (NACC) Fluoride Salt Coolants Were Conventional combined cycle gas Developed plants achieve efficiencies of 50-60% for the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program ! Aircraft Reactor Experiment, 1954 Nuclear Air-Brayton Combined Cycle (NACC) Modified GE 7FA Turbine for Co-fired NACC Base-load power: 42% efficiency (100 MWe) Gas co-firing: 66% efficiency (242 MWe) FHR Physical Plant Arrangement Coiled Tube Air Heaters (CTAHs) P.V. Gilli et al., “Radial Flow Heat Exchanger,” U.S. Patent Number 3712370, Filing date: Sept. 22, 1970, Issue date: 1973 PB-FHR Mark 1 Core Design Andreades, C., Cisneros, A. T., Choi, J. K., Chong, A. Y. K., Fratoni, M., Hong, S., … Peterson, P. F. (2014). Technical Description of the “Mark 1” Pebble-Bed Fluoride-Salt-Cooled High-Temperature Reactor (PB-FHR) Power Plant.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Water Treatment Rule Turbidity Guidance Manual
    Guidance Manual for Compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rules: Turbidity Provisions Office of Water (4606M) EPA 815-R-20-004 June 2020 Disclaimer This document provides guidance to states, tribes, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exercising primary enforcement responsibility under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and contains EPA’s policy recommendations for complying with the suite of Surface Water Treatment Rules (SWTR). Throughout this document, the terms “state” and “states” are used to refer to all types of primacy agencies including states, U.S. territories, Indian tribes, and EPA. The statutory provisions and EPA regulations described in this document contain legally binding requirements. This document is not a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for those provisions and regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, states, or the regulated community. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public. While EPA has made every effort to ensure the accuracy of the discussion in this guidance, the obligations of the regulated community are determined by statutes, regulations, or other legally binding requirements. In the event of a conflict between the discussion in this document and any statute or regulation, this document would not be controlling. The general description provided here may not apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances. Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the application of this guidance to a particular situation. EPA and other decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this guidance, where appropriate.
    [Show full text]