Water Math Water Flow 12f

Water Math

Water Flow

12f x 5f x 3f/s = 180 cfs

cfs = 449 gpm (from Module 2 document)

180 x 449 = 80,820

180 cfs = 80,820gpm

cfs = 28.32lps (from Google conversions)

180 x 28.32 = 5,097.6

180 cfs = 5,097.7lps

minutes/hr x 24 hrs/day = 1440m/d

80,820 x 1,440 = 116,380,800

449 gpm = 116.38mgd

RV = 0.05 + 0.009I

+ (0.009 x 0.85) = 0.05765

RV = 0.05765

R = P x RV ***

P = 6in = 0.5f

RV = 0.05765

A = 35,000sf

x 0.05765 x 35,000 = 1,008.875

R = 1,008.875cf

Molecule

Sink

Post-Sink Form

SO2

H202 in ice clouds

H2S04

Clegg & Abbatt 2001

CO2

Oceans (H2O)

H2CO3

Garrison 2004

O3

HOO

HO

Air

N2, CO2, H2O

EPA 2011

Of all of the possible pollutants resulting from the burning of fossil fuels, carbon dioxide is one of the simplest in terms of how it can be broken down, the available sinks, and the safety/lack of effect the carbon dioxide is in a sink or when broken down (EPA 2011). At the same time, carbon dioxide is the most abundant greenhouse gas in terms of its creation and release into the atmosphere by humans, and thus poses a large problem in terms of potential global warming and is still the focus of many reduction efforts simply due to volume, regardless of its relative safety (EPA 2011; Garrison 2004). This makes the issue a complex one without a clear answer; carbon dioxide is preferable to other potential byproducts of fossil fuel combustion due to the ease with which it can be trapped and its relative innocuousness in these sinks, but undesirable due to its volume and the lack of current capabilities to provide adequate sinks.

7) While it is understandable that the EPA would desire to increase public safety by revising standards for ground level ozone production and concentration, in reality this move is not entirely necessary. As business owners and operators, you know all too well the incessant environmental regulation can create significant operational difficulties and reduce if to eliminate profitability, often with no effect on environmental risks or damage. The EPA itself has found that ground-level ozone quickly dissipates and presents a minimal danger to health if properly vented and dispersed, yet they are revising regulations as a means of improving health -- their own science seems at odds with their conclusions (EPA 2011). The dangers caused y ozone emissions are also less than those caused by other gases, and in fact it is often in interactions with other pollutants that ozone actually produces a health threat (EPA 2011). Again, this is according to the EPA's own research making it that much more difficult to understand what their rationale is for constraining business further in this regard.