DOCSLIB.ORG

Document Separator

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Document Separator DSO00 Document ID Number 28618 I I I FieM Satnpling and Analyses Plan I Shorehatn. Yard Wood-Treating Sites I Prepared for I CP Rail Systetn I June 1995 I I I i I I Borr Engineering C~mpany I I I I I I I I I Field Sampling and Analyses Plan I Shoreham Yard Wood-Treating Sites I Prepared for I CP Rail System I June 1995 I I i I I Burr Er~lineenng C.ompa~ 8300 Norman Center Drive I Minneapol~t, MN 55437 Phone: (612) 832.2600 i Fax: (612) 832.2601 FIELD SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN I SHOREHAM YARD WOOD-TREATING SITES I REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION TABLE OF CONTENTS I INTRODUCTION I SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION ....................... I-I SECTION 2 INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES ................. 2-1 2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES ...... 2-1 I 2.1.I Soil and Rock Borinqs - Purpose and Rational~ 2-1 2.1.2 Piezometers - Purpose and Rationale ........ 2-2 2.1.3 Monitorinq Wells - Purpose and Rationale ..... 2-3 2.1.4 Test Trenchinq - Purpose and Rationale 2-3 I 2.1.5 Surface Geophysical Methods - Purpose and Rationale ..................... 2-4 2.1.6 Borehole Geophysical Methods - Purpose and I Rationale ..................... 2 -4 2.2 SAMPLE LABELING CONVENTIONS ................ 2-5 2.2.1 Location Desiqnation 2-5 I 2.2.2 Labelinq Solid Samples .............. 2-7 2.2.3 Labelinq Fluid Samples .............. 2-8 SECTION 3 INVESTIGATIVE METHODS ................... 3-1 I 3.1 DRILLING METHODS ..................... 3-1 3.1.1 Hollow-Stem Auger Method ............. 3-1 3.1.2 Rotary Method ................... 3-1 I 3.1.3 Air Rotary Casinq Hammer ............. 3-2 3.1.4 Cable Tool Method ................. 3-3 3.1.5 "Rotasonic" Drillinq Method 3-4 3.1.6 Direct Penetration Methods ............ 3-5 I 3.1.7 Backfillinq Borinqs ................ 3-7 3.2 MONITORING WELLS AND PIEZOMETERS ............. 3-7 3.2.1 Construction and Desiqn Rationale ......... 3-7 I 3.2.2 Casinq Material 3-8 3.2.3 Screen and Filter Pack Selection ......... 3-9 3.2.4 Grout Seal .................... 3-9 I 3.2.5 Groutinq ..................... 3-10 3.2.6 Well and Piezometer Development .......... 3-10 3.3 BOREHOLE/WELL ABANDONMENT ................. 3-11 3.4 TEST TRENCHING/EXCAVATING ................. 3-11 I 3.5 SURFACE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS ................ 3-12 3.6 BOREHOLE GEOPHYSICAL METHODS ............... 3-18 3.7 SURVEY OF SOIL BORINGS, WELLS, AND TRENCH LOCATIONS .... 3-19 I 3.8 EQUIPMENT DECONTAMINATION ................. 3-20 SECTION 4 SAMPLE qOLLECTION EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES ........ 4-1 4.1 SOIL SAMPLES ....................... 4-1 Q:\DOCS\26433_I\MST i I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) 4.1.1 Split-Barrel Samplinq ............... 4-1 I 4.1.2 y~in-Wall (Shelby) Tube Samplers ......... 4-2 4.1.3 Continuous Hollow-Tuba Sampler .......... 4-2 4.1.4 Rotasonic Samplinq ................ 4-2 4.1.5 Grab Samples From Trenches and Excavations .... 4-2 I 4,1.6 Surficial Soil Samplinq .............. 4-3 4,1.7 Composite Soil Samples 4-3 4.2 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING ................... 4-4 I 4.2.1 General Requirement 4-4 4.2.2 Collection of Groundwater Samples by Bailer .... 4-5 4.2.3 Collection of Groundwater Samples by Dedicated Pum~ ....................... 4-5 I 4.2.4 Collection of Groundwater Samples from Temporary Well Points .................... 4-5 4.3 SURFACE WATER SAMPLING .................. 4-7 I 4.3.1 Surface Water Level Monitorinq ....... ¯ . 4-7 4.3.2 Surface Water Samplin~ .............. 4-7 4.3.3 Stormwater Diseharqe Samplinq ........... 4-7 I 4.4 SEDIMENT SAMPLING ..................... 4-8 4.5 AIR SAMPLING ....................... 4-8 4.6 QUALITY CONTROL SAMPLES .................. 4-8 4.6.1 Trip and Field Blanks ............... 4-8 I 4.6.2 Field Duplicate Samples .............. 4-10 sEcTION 5 FIELD DATA COLLECTION METHODS AND PROCEDURES ....... 5-1 I 5.1 SOIL CLASSIFICATION METHODS ................ 5-1 5.2 SOIL SCREENING FOR WOOD TREATING RESIDUALS ........ 5-1 5.2.1 Visual/Olfactory ................. 5-1 5.2.2 Headspace Orqanic Vapor Screeninq ......... 5-1 I 5.2.3 Immunoassay Methods ................ 5-I 5.3 WATER SCREENING FOR WOOD TREATING RESIDUALS ........ 5-2 5.3.1 Visual/Olfactory ................. 5-2 I 5.3.2 Orqanic Vapor Headspace .............. 5-2 5.3 . 3 Immunoassay Methods ................ 5-2 5.3.4 G~eeneral Groundwater and Field Measurements .... 5-2 I 5.3.4.1 Water Level Monitoring ......... 5-2 5,3.4.2 General Parameters ........... 5-3 5.3.4.3 Geochemical Parameters ......... 5-3 5.3.4.4 Indicator Parameters .......... 5-3 I 5.4 FIELD LOGS 5-3 SECTION 6 HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY TESTING .............. 6-1 I 6.1 FIELD METHODS ....................... 6-1 6.1.1 Sluq Tests .................... 6-I 6.1.2 Theis Recovery Test Methods ............ 6-1 I 6.1.3 S~ecific Capacity Test Method ........... 6-2 6.2 LABOEATORY/EMPIRICAL METHODS ............... 6-3 6.2.1 Grain Size Analysis ................ 6-3 I 6.2.2 Permeability Test ................. 6-3 Q: \DOCS\26433_I\MST ii I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.) SECTION 7 MANAGEMENT OF INVESTIGATION-DERIVED WASTES ........ 7-1 I 7.1 CONTROL OF WASTE ..................... 7-1 7.2 TESTING OF WASTE ..................... 7-1 7.3 DISPOSAL AND/OR TREATMENT OF WASTES ....... ’ ..... 7-2 I REFERENCES I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! Q: \DOCS\26433_I\MST iii I I LIST OF TABLES I TABLE i Standard Designators for Investigation Locations I TABLE 2 Recommended Containers, Preservation, and Holding Times I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Q:\DOCS\26433_I\MST I I Section: 1 I Revision: 6/5/95 Date: 5/10/94 I Page: i of i SECTION 1 I INTRODUCTION This Field Sampling Plan {FSP) constitutes Part I of a standard Sampling I and Analysis Plan (SAP) for field activities conducted for the Shoreham Yard Wood-Treating Sites Remedial Investigation. The following tasks may be I implemented during the investigation: I Soil and rock sampling for description and geologic interpretation; Soil sampling for field screening of wood t[eating residuals and I laboratory analyses; Groundwater level monitoring; Groundwater sampling for field screening and laSoratory analyses; I Hydraulic conductivity testing; Surface water sampling and laboratory analyses; I Sediment sampling (in surface water bodies) and laboratory analyses; and I Airborne particulates sampling and laboratory analyses. I The separate Remedial Investigation Work Plan describes the overall .scope and objectives of the project, provides site-specific information relevant to each site, and describes the specific site investigation tasks to I be implemented. This FSP describes how the samples will be collected and is structured to provide a complete list of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) I for the investigation. I I I I Q:\DOCS\26433_I\MST 1 I I Section: 2 Revision: 6/5/95 I Date: 5/10/94 Page: 1 of 8 I SECTION 2 I INVESTIGATION ACTIVITIES I 2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF INVESTIGATIVE TECHNIQUES Investigation activities may include: collection of samples of surficial soils for laboratory analysis of soil quality; test trench I excavation; soil and rock boring installation; collection of soil samples from test trenches and borings for description, geologic interpretation, I field screening, and laboratory analysis of soil quality; geophysical surveys; piezometer installations; monitoring well installations; water level I monitoring; groundwater quality sampling and analysis; surface water and sediment sampling; hydraulic conductivity testing; end land survey for I location and elevation of site features, test trenches, soil borings, piezometers, and monitoring wells. I In order to expedite the investigation schedule and to minimize cost, the use of field screening and field analysis methods will be employed I wherever feasible. Commercially available test kits (wet chemistry, immunoassay) may be used to define contaminant levels and screen for I contaminants in both soil and groundwater. Laboratory analyses will be used for correlation and confirmation of the field screening analysis. Following I is a description of the purpose of the primary investigative techniques and rationale for their use. I 2.1.1 Soil and Rock Borinqs - Purpose and Rationale I The objectives of soil and rock borings are to: I Obtain lithologic samples for soil description and lithologic interpretation to delineate the site stratigraphy; I I Q:\DOCS\26433_I\MST Section: 2 Revision: 6/5/95 Date: 5/10/94 Page: 2 of 8 Provide geological information that will aid in the design of proposed monitoring wells; Target specific historic structures and/or waste disposal areas to locate primary sources of wood treating residuals; Obtain soil samples to be field-screened for wood treating residuals; Obtain soil samples for laboratory analysis to confirm the horizontal and vertical extent of possible subsurface contamination; and Obtain soil samples for analysis of parameters that may be used in the screening of remedial alternatives. Borings will be the investigative technique of choice whenever direct measurements of lithology or soil quality are necessary, and when indirect techniques (i.e., geophysics) are not likely to provide sufficient detail about subsurface conditions. Data from soil and rock boringswill be~ recorded on Boring Log Forms (Attachment i) or on drilling log forms provided by the drilling contractor. 2.1.2 Piezometers - Purpose and Rationale Piezometers will be installed with the following objectives: ¯ Provide water level information; ¯ Characterize and confirm groundwater flow patterns; ¯ Obtain water samples for field screening; and Q:\DOCS\26433_I\MST 2 Section: 2 Revision: 6/5/95 I Date: 5/10/94 Page: 3 of 8 I Provide for in situ permeability characterization. I Piezometer constructions will be summarized in table format and Well Construction Forms (Attachment 2) or on well construction forms provided by I the drilling contractor.
Recommended publications
  • 2010 Summer NABC Appeals Casebook

    2010 Summer NABC Appeals Casebook

    2010 Summer NABC Appeals Casebook Appeals at the 2010 Summer NABC New Orleans, Louisiana FOREWORD The appeal hearings and commentary descriptions are now being compiled and edited by the American Contract Bridge League. They are published on the ACBL web page. This internet publication is intended to be a tool to help improve the abilities of those serving on appeals committees and tournament directors and to communicate decisions and the process to arrive at those decisions to the membership at large. A total of thirty (20) cases were heard. Eight (8) cases were from unrestricted (by masterpoints) North American Bridge Championship Events and were heard by a committee of peers. The names of the players involved are included. Twelve (12) cases were from all other events and were heard by panels (committees) of tournament directors. The names of the players involved are included when the event from which the appeal came was a Flight A/X event or was the top bracket of a bracketed knockout event. When the names of the players are not used, the player’s masterpoint total is included. The cases are first presented without commentary. After the official panel of commentators has had an opportunity to provide their commentary (about 4 weeks) and any corrections to the cases, the commentary is added, corrections made and the internet publication is finalized. Everyone involved in this process is due praise for their efforts. Special thanks to the NABC Appeals Committee and the Tournament Directors serving on the director committees, scribes and commentators. Without their considerable contribution of time and effort, this publication would not exist.
  • Veldhoven 2011 Issue

    Veldhoven 2011 Issue

    Co-ordinator: Jean-Paul Meyer • Chief Editor: Brent Manley • Editors: Phillip Alder, Mark Horton, Jos Jacobs, Micke Melander, Brian Senior • Lay Out Editor: Akis Kanaris • Photographer: Ron Tacchi Issue No. 3 Tuesday, 18 October 2011 LONG AND WINDING ROAD The audience in the VuGraph auditorium watches the action and listens to expert commentary Two days of round robin play are in the books, time for competitors in the Bermuda Bowl, Venice Cup and D’Orsi Contents Senior Bowl to take a breath and realize they still have five Tournament Results . .2-3 days of play left to try to make it to the knockout phases A smasher called Italy . .5 of their respective events. Familiar foes (VC Round 2, Germany - Netherlands) . .6 By the time they’re done, each team will have played 21 SB Round 3, Denmark - USA 2 . .8 matches with the goal of making the top eight in their Good morning, Veldhoven . .11 brackets, the requisite for playing on after Saturday. Comeback (BB Round 2, USA 1 - China) . .12 Italy is still in the lead in the Bermuda Bowl, but with a Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup - Round 3 . .14 loss and a narrow win over Iceland, their substantial lead Second hand high . .17 has shrunk as the Netherlands closes in. In the Venice Cup, Rub of the Green (Round 4, China - France) . .18 Sweden has a slim lead over Germany, with England in hot Meet my maker, the Mad Multi . .22 pursuit. France is setting the standard in the Senior Bowl, 9 Chinese slam swings . .24 VPs ahead of USA 2.
  • Standard American System Notes Noble Shore

    Standard American System Notes Noble Shore

    Standard American System Notes Noble Shore Pages Definitions 2 1NT opening 3-10 1H/S openings 11-14 1D/C openings 15-18 Weak openings 19-21 Strong openings 22-23 Overcalls 24-25 Takeout Doubles 26-27 Slam Bidding 28-29 Carding 30 Sample ACBL Convention Cards 31-32 Index of Conventions 33 Author’s Note 34 Definitions A balanced hand contains no singletons or voids and at most one doubleton. Points refer to a total value of a hand, including shape. HCP refers only to a hand’s high-card points. A natural suited bid shows 4+ cards in its suit. A natural notrump bid shows a desire to play in notrump. A non-natural bid is called an artificial bid. A convention is a commonly used artificial bid that has been given a name. Conventions are not part of Standard American, but many are commonly or nearly-universally played. A forcing bid demands a bid from partner if the next opponent passes. A forcing bid is also known as one- round-forcing. A signoff is a bid that strongly requests a pass or correction to another suit shown by the player signing off. Partner normally may not make a bid in any suit not shown by the signing-off player. A signoff usually occurs when the captain of the auction places the final contract. An invitational bid communicates that the partnership should bid a game unless partner has very minimal strength for previous actions. A game-forcing bid means that the partnership cannot play any contract below 3NT.
  • HIGH INTENSITY SRF PROTON LINAC WORKSHOP (VUGRAPHS) S° £*§!* 2 5 Itfs § •S^2,§ I?

    HIGH INTENSITY SRF PROTON LINAC WORKSHOP (VUGRAPHS) S° £*§!* 2 5 Itfs § •S^2,§ I?

    & o riF~ 9srosr29?~ i/^^ 1A-UR- 95 "3 3 §-5%. TITLE: HIGH INTENSITY SRF PROTON LINAC WORKSHOP (VUGRAPHS) S° £*§!* 2 5 ItfS § •s^2,§ I? AUTHOR(S): •-(3D CD « Brian A. Rusnak and AOT-1 o g CD a II Several external authors So --I; !-' i J*> a . c ca a g E a a o..2 (500 double-sided a 4> ,0 u £ 00 O •" « 6*3 o g • vugraphs) TS S 2 c _. ,1 o. «> ""S8SI Is M E t S II 'S « O O Si * 5- II "S2 O« g B.to & S - p l'i is 8 » s* « '3 o s ii 1? SUBMITTED TO: High Intensity SRP Proton Linac Workshop. •?« I Santa Fe, NM •It! •5 -c May 7-10,1995 o o li §2 n J3 a E f£§iI 8f 11I NATIONAL LABORATORY Los Alamos National Laboratory, an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer, is operated by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36. By acceptance of this article, the publisher recognizes that the U.S. Government retains a nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. The Los Alamos National Laboratory requests that the publisher identify this article as work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy. Form No. 836 R5 DISTRIBUTION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED ST 262910.91 DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products.
  • Terr Mosc.Pdf

    Terr Mosc.Pdf

    1 Terrorist's Moscito, or Major-Oriented Strong Club, with Intrepid Two Openers A Primer on Advanced System Construction Professor Bo-Yin Yang, a.k.a. terrorist Contributing authors: Dept. of Mathematics, Tamkang University Ruey-Lun Lin, Hsinchu Tamsui, Taipei County, Taiwan (25137) Jessica Y. Lee, Hsinchu [email protected], http://moscito.org David Morgan, Canberra March 28, 2000 Contents 1 Introduction 7 1.1 General Philosophy . 7 1.1.1 Action and Adventure . 7 1.1.2 Bondage vs. Discipline . 7 1.1.3 Canap´e:Fours, Fives, and mafia ......................................... 8 1.1.4 Distinct Design: Pride and Price . 8 1.1.5 Extremism or Moderation? . 9 1.1.6 Fixation on Fibonacci: on Relays . 9 1.2 History of Moscito . 9 1.2.1 The Symmetric Relay . 9 1.2.2 From Forcing Pass to Moscito . 9 1.2.3 A Unified Approach in Competition . 9 2 General Constructive Structures 10 2.1 No-trump Structures: Overview . 11 2.1.1 Development over 1N ................................................ 11 2.1.2 Normal bidding over limited 1N .......................................... 11 2.2 Choice of Contracts . 11 2.3 Slam Bidding: asking bids . 11 2.4 Slam Bidding: cue-bids . 11 3 Defensive Bidding 12 3.1 In 2nd chair over 1-level opening . 13 3.1.1 By hand-type: 2nd seat, 1-level . 13 3.1.2 By-call: 2nd seat, 1-level . 13 3.1.3 Adjustments for special circumstances . 14 3.2 Developing a 1-level Overcall . 14 3.2.1 Advancing a 1-level overcall . 14 3.2.2 Advancing over a \negative" double .
  • System Notes on Pascal's Encrypted Club

    System Notes on Pascal's Encrypted Club

    System notes on Pascal Matthew Johnson Henry Lockwood November 5, 2018 Contents 1 Administriva5 1.1 Notation.............................5 1.2 System regulation........................5 1.2.1 WBF classification...................5 1.2.2 WBF Category 3 variation...............5 2 System description6 2.1 Philosophy...........................6 2.2 Hand evaluation.........................6 2.3 Openings............................7 2.3.1 1 level..........................7 2.3.2 2 level..........................9 2.3.3 Higher openings.................... 10 2.4 Responses & rebids....................... 11 2.4.1 1 level.......................... 11 2.4.2 Natural 1NT...................... 17 2.4.3 Artificial 1NT...................... 17 2.4.4 2 level.......................... 18 2.4.5 Responses to higher opening bids........... 22 2.5 Continuations after 1NT.................... 24 2.5.1 After 1NT is doubled for penalties........... 27 2.5.2 After direct overcalls of 1NT.............. 28 2.6 Continuations after 2NT.................... 29 3 Encrypted bidding 30 1 4 Slam conventions 30 4.1 Roman key-card Blackwood (1430).............. 30 4.2 Exclusion Blackwood...................... 31 4.3 King you have or king you don’t................ 31 4.4 First-round-control showing cues................ 31 4.5 General Swiss.......................... 32 4.5.1 Interference....................... 33 4.6 Roman Key-Quant Gerber................... 33 4.7 Viscount............................. 34 5 Competitive bidding 34 5.1 Natural suits........................... 34 5.1.1 Simple overcalls.................... 34 5.1.2 Double......................... 34 5.1.3 NT overcall....................... 34 5.1.4 Jump overcalls..................... 34 5.1.5 Jump cue bids...................... 35 5.1.6 2-suited overcalls.................... 35 5.2 Defences............................ 38 5.2.1 Natural 1NT...................... 39 5.2.2 Artificial strong bids.................
  • 12,246.5 Tables Wu Wins Mini-Spingold

    12,246.5 Tables Wu Wins Mini-Spingold

    Sunday, July 31, 2016 Washington DC • July 21-31, 2016 Volume 88, Number 10 Daily Bulletin 88th North American Bridge Championships [email protected] | Paul Linxwiler, Brent Manley and Chip Dombrowski Wu wins Mini-Spingold Zimmermann, Edmund Wu got a late birthday present when Fleisher meet in his team won the 0-5000 Mini-Spingold two days Spingold final after he turned 26. They The teams of Pierre Zimmermann and Marty defeated the team of Fleisher reached today’s final in the Spingold KO Robert Bernstein 151–146. Teams. Zimmermann defeated Lavazza 150–111, Wu of San Francisco while Fleisher escaped Strul 111–108 in Saturday’s played with Jesse Chao, semifinals. also of San Francisco, Alex Zimmermann is playing with Franck Multon, Dezieck of Taipei, Taiwan, Geir Helgemo, Tor Helness, Krzysztof Martens and and Zhou “Jimmy” Wang Dominik Filipowicz. Fleisher’s lineup is Chip Martel, of Jersey City NJ. William Roy Welland, Sabine Auken, Joe Grue and Brad Zhu of New York also Moss. played on the team through The Zimmermann team, originally seeded No. 8, Thursday but dropped out got off to a big first-half lead of 84–28 in their match Winners of the 0-5000 Mini-Spingold: Edmund Wu, Zhuo “Jimmy” Wang, against Lavazza (4). Lavazza cut the lead in both the Alex Dezieck and Jesse Chao. continued on page 5 third and fourth quarters, but only by single digits each time. The other match was much closer. Fleisher (2) Defenders repeat in Red Ribbon Pairs took a 36–15 lead in the first quarter.
  • Australian Bridge Federation Inc

    Australian Bridge Federation Inc

    NEWSLETTER AUSTRALIAN BRIDGE FEDERATION INC. Editor: Barbara Travis ([email protected]) No. 191 June 2018 Approved for Print Post S65001/00163 ABN 70 053 651 666 WBF PRESIDENT RONA ON WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS, CHEATS AND THE FUTURE President of the World Bridge Federation (WBF) since 2009, Gianarrigo Rona is one of the most influential and visible people in the bridge world. On a sunny February morning in the Gold Coast, I sit down with President Rona to hear his thoughts on topics ranging from the Olympic movement and the cheating scandal through to youth bridge and the future of the game. This is not Rona’s first visit to Australia. This time, Rona has come at the invitation of the organiser of the 5th Commonwealth Nations Bridge Competition. While in Australia, he will also be continuing negotiations with Bruce Neill, President of the Australian Bridge Federation, about Australia potentially hosting a future WBF world championship. Mr Gianarrigo Rona being interviewed by Liam Milne Recently, the WBF has come under fire for various reasons. These have included accusations of being slow to investigate government support and subsidies for bridge in this region. and act against cheats, allowing Poland to contest (and win) Rona points out that aside from bridge, many other activities the 2015 Bermuda Bowl despite two of its players having still strive to be accepted by the International Olympic their invitations to play withdrawn, as well as the scoring Committee. Surely this must mean it is worth something to be scandal of 2016 where the World Bridge Games Open Pairs part of the Olympic movement, otherwise why would they be and Women’s Pairs gold medals were each awarded to the trying to get in? He also claims that the benefits go beyond ‘wrong pair’ before scoring errors were discovered.
  • Volume 88:1 | Issue 1 2015 From

    Volume 88:1 | Issue 1 2015 From

    Buckeye Bulletin Ohio Water Environment Association | Volume 88:1 | Issue 1 2015 From High School to Highly Skilled page 21 Understanding the Reality of a Small MS4, City of Piqua page 62 Nutrient Recovery as a Green Technology for Managing Phosphorus Removal page 54 A Day on the Job of a Diver page 22 2015 Government and Regulatory Water Environment Affairs Workshop Association Thursday, March 5th Preserving & Enhancing pages 16-17 Ohio’s Water Environment www.ohiowea.org 2 Buckeye Bulletin - Issue 1 | 2015 What’s Inside Disclaimer The Buckeye Bulletin (BB) is the official publication FEATURES of the Ohio Water Environment Association, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation founded in 1926, dedicated WEF Collection Systems Conference/Cincinnati 7 to the improvement of water quality in Ohio and the continuing education of water professionals. It is one Kocarek Korner 8-9 of the top five member associations of the Water Environment Federation. Government and Regulatory Affairs Workshop 16-17 The ideas, opinions, concepts, and procedures WEF Operator Strategy Workgroup Update 20 expressed in this publication are those of the individual Happy in Akron - From High School to Highly Skilled 21 authors and not necessarily those of the Ohio Water Environment Association, its officers, general “Maybe I’ll Call In Sick Next Time” - A Day on the Job 22-23 membership, or staff. Ohio EPA Update 26-27 For further information on submitting articles or advertising, please contact our organization at: 2015 Technical Conference and Exhibition 35-50 Ohio Water Environment Association Thank You 2015 OWEA Sponsors 37 1890 Northwest Blvd, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43212 Nutrient Recovery as a Green Technology .
  • 2017 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE) in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, August 6-9, 2017

    2017 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE) in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, August 6-9, 2017

    ASME 2017 INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING TECHNICAL CONFERENCES & COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE CONFERENCE August 6–9, 2017 Cleveland, Ohio Program 19TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ADVANCED VEHICLE TECHNOLOGIES (AVT) 37TH COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE (CIE) 43ND DESIGN AUTOMATION CONFERENCE (DAC) 14TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN EDUCATION (DEC) 22ND DESIGN FOR MANUFACTURING AND THE LIFE CYCLE CONFERENCE (DFMLC) 29TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY (DTM) 13TH ASME/IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MECHATRONIC & EMBEDDED SYSTEMS & APPLICATIONS (MESA) 41ST MECHANISMS AND ROBOTICS CONFERENCE (MR) 11TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MICRO- AND NANOSYSTEMS (MNS) 13TH INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON MULTIBODY SYSTEMS, NONLINEAR DYNAMICS, AND CONTROL (MSNDC) ASME 2017 2017 ASME INTERNATIONAL POWER TRANSMISSION AND GEARING CONFERENCE (PTG) INTERNATIONAL DESIGN ENGINEERING 29TH CONFERENCE ON MECHANICAL VIBRATION AND NOISE (VIB) 10TH FRONTIERS IN BIOMEDICAL DEVICES (BIOMED) TECHNICAL CONFERENCES & COMPUTERS AND INFORMATION IN ENGINEERING CONFERENCE The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) 170747incoversREALLY_Layout 1 7/20/2017 5:53 PM Page 2 IDETC/CIE 2017 Chairs’ Welcome IDETC/CIE/ See you in 2018! We are pleased to welcome everyone to the 2017 ASME International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE) in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, August 6-9, 2017. This flagship meeting for the ASME Design Engineering Division and
  • July-August 2012 Youth Bulletin

    July-August 2012 Youth Bulletin

    AUSTRALIAN YOUTH BRIDGE BULLETIN JULY - AUGUST Bulletin Editors: Andy Hung, Laura Ginnan ISSUE 3 WA Takes Out The ANC Youth Teams! For 2012 For 2012 DDAATTEESS EEVVEENNTT WWHHEERREE 14th World JUL AUG Youth Team China 25 - 4 Champs nd AUG AUG 2 World Lille, Mind Sports 9 - 23 Games France AUG SEP 7th APBF Fukuoka, 25 - 2 Congress Japan SEP OCT 27th NZ Hamilton, National Winners of the Youth Teams at the Australian National Championships (L to R): 29 - 6 Congress NZ Rhys Cooper, Renee Cooper, Jane Reynolds, Tim Knowles, Kirstyn Fuller, Michael OCT NOV Spring Bausor, and Ron Cooper (NPC) Sydney 24 - 1 Nationals Congratulations to the Western Australian Youth Championship TBA ? Australian Winners Michael Bausor, Renee Cooper, Rhys Cooper, Kirstyn Youth TBA ? - ? Triathlon Fuller, Tim Knowles and Jane Reynolds captained by Ron Cooper. The WA team has strengthened as a unit over the years. During the fight for this year’s victory, WA proved that the West side has it - TTRREEAATTSS the team led convincingly throughout the three round robins and Pre-Alerts!................. 1 was able to hold onto the lead they gained in the first segment of Checkback (Results).........2 the finals to prove the victors. After the third round robin, the standings were: WA (635.1), NSW (617.1), QLD (595.8), VIC ANC Youth Teams.. .......3 (541.1), SA (426.6), and ACT (308.5). The top two finishers Pseudo Squeeze Countered...7 qualified for the finals, and the score for the championship finals Profiles of Aus/NZ Youth was: WA - 88 IMPs, NSW - 68 IMPs.

  • System Notes From

    Name Matthew Johnson EBU No. 421514 Partner Henry Lockwood EBU No. 421925 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF BIDDING METHODS Nebulous Club, Strong Diamond, Variable NT, Ten Multis 1NT OPENINGS AND RESPONSES Strength Varies Tick if artificial and provide details below Shape Constraints (Semi-) Balanced Tick if may have singleton Responses 2 5-card puppet Keri [8a] 2 Transfer to Hearts 2 Transfer to Spades 2 Range or Clubs 2NT Transfer to Diamonds System notes from Others 3C = natural, invitational, 3D = 5/5 majors, invitational Actions after opponents double Modified Suction [20] or Aardvark/Halmic [21] http://www.matthew.ath.cx/misc/bridge Actions after other interference Lebensohl [13] TWO-LEVEL OPENINGS AND RESPONSES Meaning Responses Notes 2 6+ Diamonds Weak* or 20-23 bal or 4+/4+ Spades and Hearts Weak* or GF 18 2 6+ Hearts Weak* or 5+/4+ Spades and Clubs Weak* or GF 18 2 6+ Spades Weak* or 4+/4+ Clubs and Diamonds Weak* or GF 18 2 7+ Clubs Weak* or 4+/4+ Hearts and a Minor Weak* or GF 18 2NT 23+ semi-bal. OR S&D Weak* or GF Preference or Transfer Pref. if strong. OTHER ASPECTS OF SYSTEM WHICH OPPONENTS SHOULD NOTE 1C is max 15 max 1x4CM or 12-15 bal (1st or 2nd NV) or 11-13 bal (1st or 2nd V) 1D is 16-22, any distribution (F1, not GF) 1H shows 4+ Hearts (5 unless spades), maybe a canape with a minor 1S shows 5+ Spades, may be a canape with a minor 1N is 9-11 (12 NV), 9-15 (3NV), 12-15 (4NV, 34V) or 14-16 (12V) 2 openings are single suit or two suit, weak or GF 2N is two-way: weak or GF with S&D or GF balanced.