Krasner J D (25 results)

Paperback. Condition: Very Good. This copy is FINE; the text is clear, bright, and unmarked; binding is tight. The covers are also fine; absolutely intact in all ways, including perfect color and design. We have a five star rating because of our fulfilment success and because our descriptions are accurate. All shipments within U.S. sent by Delivery Confirmation. On foreign sales, because of the heavy weight of this book, we have to charge extra for shipping: however, we will only charge the difference between our regular shipping rate and the extra charge that the U.S.Post Office asks to ship the book. We guarantee: NO NASTY SURPRISES.

Condition: Good. This is an ex-library book and may have the usual library/used-book markings inside.This book has soft covers. Clean from markings. In good all round condition. Please note the Image in this listing is a stock photo and may not match the covers of the actual item,650grams, ISBN:9780195127256.

Condition: Good. Paperback, light feeling of use, very good condition, 421pp.

Condition: New.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Softcover. Condition: Good. Dust Jacket Condition: No dust jacket. xiii, 421 p.

Condition: New. Satisfaction Guaranteed or your money back.

Condition: New.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Rilegato Con Sovraccopertina, In Ottime Condizioni,Senza Particolari Difetti Nè Segni Lungo Il Testo Che È Fresco. Non Comune.

421pp. lar.8vo. pb.

RIGIDA. Condition: ottimo. Prima edizione. A. L. Kadis, J. D. Krasner, C. Winick, S. H. Foulkes - Manuale di psicoterapia di gruppo Feltrinelli, 1967 Libro in ottime condizioni, minimi segni del tempo: Qualche strappo lieve alla sovracopertina. Non esitate a contattarci per altre foto o richieste. Saremo lieti di soddisfare ogni vostra esigenza. Libro.

Condition: New.

Condition: New.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Condition: As New. Unread book in perfect condition.

Paperback. Condition: New. Utilities must decide whether to modify their existing treatment practices to achieve compliance with the D/DBP regulations. A regulatory impact analysis predicted that up to 70% of large surface-water systems would need to make some treatment modifications.  Meeting multiple water-quality objectives plays an important role in the decision-making process of water utilities. Utilities must meet other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards. In addition, there are operational, financial, and engineering issues that affect the selection of treatment technologies. Because of the uncertainty of how stringent certain regulations will be and the high costs of advanced treatment technologies, many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. Most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. Utilities must factor in other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards when selecting a treatment modification for compliance with the D/DBP Rule. Some utilities chose advanced treatment processes (e.g., ozonation, membranes) that would enable them to satisfy other current and anticipated future regulations or other water quality objectives. Some systems chose ozone, in part because of its ability to destroy taste-and-odor-causing contaminants. Likewise, granular activated carbon was added to filters for taste-and-odor control. In addition, space and retrofit considerations affected technology choices.   Many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. To meet Stage 1 of the D/DBP Rule, most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. The major disadvantage to staged implementation was that the treatment process was re-optimized each time treatment modifications were made. However, this problem was minimized if the full range of changes in treatment was envisioned in advance and if incremental modifications were made that were part of and consistent with long-term modifications.  Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003   This publication can be purchased and downloaded via Pay Per View on Water Intelligence Online - click on the Pay Per View icon below.

Paperback. Condition: New. Utilities must decide whether to modify their existing treatment practices to achieve compliance with the D/DBP regulations. A regulatory impact analysis predicted that up to 70% of large surface-water systems would need to make some treatment modifications.  Meeting multiple water-quality objectives plays an important role in the decision-making process of water utilities. Utilities must meet other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards. In addition, there are operational, financial, and engineering issues that affect the selection of treatment technologies. Because of the uncertainty of how stringent certain regulations will be and the high costs of advanced treatment technologies, many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. Most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. Utilities must factor in other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards when selecting a treatment modification for compliance with the D/DBP Rule. Some utilities chose advanced treatment processes (e.g., ozonation, membranes) that would enable them to satisfy other current and anticipated future regulations or other water quality objectives. Some systems chose ozone, in part because of its ability to destroy taste-and-odor-causing contaminants. Likewise, granular activated carbon was added to filters for taste-and-odor control. In addition, space and retrofit considerations affected technology choices.   Many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. To meet Stage 1 of the D/DBP Rule, most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. The major disadvantage to staged implementation was that the treatment process was re-optimized each time treatment modifications were made. However, this problem was minimized if the full range of changes in treatment was envisioned in advance and if incremental modifications were made that were part of and consistent with long-term modifications.  Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003   This publication can be purchased and downloaded via Pay Per View on Water Intelligence Online - click on the Pay Per View icon below.

Paperback. Condition: New. Utilities must decide whether to modify their existing treatment practices to achieve compliance with the D/DBP regulations. A regulatory impact analysis predicted that up to 70% of large surface-water systems would need to make some treatment modifications.  Meeting multiple water-quality objectives plays an important role in the decision-making process of water utilities. Utilities must meet other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards. In addition, there are operational, financial, and engineering issues that affect the selection of treatment technologies. Because of the uncertainty of how stringent certain regulations will be and the high costs of advanced treatment technologies, many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. Most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. Utilities must factor in other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards when selecting a treatment modification for compliance with the D/DBP Rule. Some utilities chose advanced treatment processes (e.g., ozonation, membranes) that would enable them to satisfy other current and anticipated future regulations or other water quality objectives. Some systems chose ozone, in part because of its ability to destroy taste-and-odor-causing contaminants. Likewise, granular activated carbon was added to filters for taste-and-odor control. In addition, space and retrofit considerations affected technology choices.   Many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. To meet Stage 1 of the D/DBP Rule, most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. The major disadvantage to staged implementation was that the treatment process was re-optimized each time treatment modifications were made. However, this problem was minimized if the full range of changes in treatment was envisioned in advance and if incremental modifications were made that were part of and consistent with long-term modifications.  Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003   This publication can be purchased and downloaded via Pay Per View on Water Intelligence Online - click on the Pay Per View icon below.

Paperback. Condition: New. Utilities must decide whether to modify their existing treatment practices to achieve compliance with the D/DBP regulations. A regulatory impact analysis predicted that up to 70% of large surface-water systems would need to make some treatment modifications.  Meeting multiple water-quality objectives plays an important role in the decision-making process of water utilities. Utilities must meet other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards. In addition, there are operational, financial, and engineering issues that affect the selection of treatment technologies. Because of the uncertainty of how stringent certain regulations will be and the high costs of advanced treatment technologies, many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. Most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. Utilities must factor in other regulatory requirements and secondary drinking-water standards when selecting a treatment modification for compliance with the D/DBP Rule. Some utilities chose advanced treatment processes (e.g., ozonation, membranes) that would enable them to satisfy other current and anticipated future regulations or other water quality objectives. Some systems chose ozone, in part because of its ability to destroy taste-and-odor-causing contaminants. Likewise, granular activated carbon was added to filters for taste-and-odor control. In addition, space and retrofit considerations affected technology choices.   Many utilities have implemented treatment modifications in stages. To meet Stage 1 of the D/DBP Rule, most utilities have made treatment modifications that have been cost-effective to meet their site-specific needs and objectives, while continuing to study or implement long-term treatment changes to meet more stringent future regulations. The major disadvantage to staged implementation was that the treatment process was re-optimized each time treatment modifications were made. However, this problem was minimized if the full range of changes in treatment was envisioned in advance and if incremental modifications were made that were part of and consistent with long-term modifications.  Originally published by AwwaRF for its subscribers in 2003   This publication can be purchased and downloaded via Pay Per View on Water Intelligence Online - click on the Pay Per View icon below.

Hardcover. Condition: New.

rilegato. Condition: Good. Lievi bruniture e mimima fragilizzazione alla sovraccoperta. Volume altrimenti in ottime condizioni. Pagine pulite, senza scritte né sottolineature. Legatura salda. Book.

rilegato. Condition: Very Good. Sovraccoperta con scoloritura da esposizione nella parte superiore. Copertina in buonissime condizioni con legatura e interno, del testo, senza scritte né sottolineature. Book.

Milano, Feltrinelli, 1971, 8vo (cm. 22,5 x 15) tutta tela editoriale con sovraccoperta, pp. X-226.

Condition: New. PRINT ON DEMAND pp. xii + 740.