DOCSLIB.ORG

Final Treatability Study Technical Memorandum Formosa Mine

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Final Treatability Study Technical Memorandum Formosa Mine Final Treatability Study Technical Memorandum Formosa Mine Superfund Site Douglas County, Oregon Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, Washington 98101 Prepared by: CDM Federal Programs 1218 Third Avenue, Suite 1100 Seattle, Washington 98101 Parametrix 411 108th Avenue NE, Suite 100 Bellevue, Washington 98004 R‐10 AES (SMALL BUSINESS) CONTRACT NO. 68‐S7‐03‐04 June 12, 2014 Task Order No. 047B Final Treatability Study Technical Memorandum Formosa Mine Superfund Site Douglas County, Oregon R‐10 AES (SMALL BUSINESS) CONTRACT NO. 68‐S7‐03‐04 Task Order No. 047B 06/12/14 Prepared by: Date Stephen Dent, Ph.D. CDM Smith Project Scientist1 06/12/14 Reviewed by: Date Roger Olsen, Ph.D. CDM Smith Technical Reviewer 06/12/14 Reviewed by: Date David J. Reisman CDM Smith Technical Consultant 06/12/14 Approved by: Date Michael C. Allen, P.E. CDM Smith Project Manager Distribution List (via email) Chris Cora Remedial Project Manager EPA Region 10 Seattle, WA i This page intentionally left blank ii Table of Contents Section 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1‐1 1.1 Site Description and Background ........................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.2 Purpose of Treatability Study ............................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3 Treatment Technology Description .................................................................................................................... 1‐2 1.3.1 Biological and Chemical Processes for MIW Treatment in BCRs .............................................. 1‐2 1.3.2 Factors Impacting BCR Performance ..................................................................................................... 1‐3 1.3.3 ORD Bench‐Scale Studies ............................................................................................................................ 1‐3 1.4 Pilot‐Scale Treatability Study Objectives ......................................................................................................... 1‐4 1. 5 Pilot‐Scale Treatability Study Approach ......................................................................................................... 1‐4 1.5.1 Formosa 1 Adit Chemistry .......................................................................................................................... 1‐5 1.5.2 Pre‐Treatment Methods .............................................................................................................................. 1‐5 1.5.3 BCRs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1‐6 1.5.4 Post‐Treatment ............................................................................................................................................... 1‐6 1.5.5 Treatability Study System Layout and Design Flow Rate ............................................................. 1‐6 1.5.5.1 System Layout ................................................................................................................................... 1‐6 1.5.5.2 System Flow Rate ............................................................................................................................ 1‐7 Section 2 Pilot Study Methods and Sampling ........................................................................................ 2‐1 2.1 Collection and Routing of MIW ............................................................................................................................. 2‐1 2.2 Pre‐Treatment System Installation .................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2.1 SAPS Pre‐Treatment System ..................................................................................................................... 2‐2 2.2.2 ChitoRem® Pre‐Treatment System ....................................................................................................... 2‐3 2.3 Installation of Biochemical Reactors ................................................................................................................. 2‐3 2.4 System Startup, Operation and Maintenance, and Shutdown ................................................................ 2‐4 2.4.1 System Startup ................................................................................................................................................. 2‐4 2.4.2 Operation and Maintenance ...................................................................................................................... 2‐5 2.4.3 System Shutdown ........................................................................................................................................... 2‐9 2.5 Pilot Study Sampling ................................................................................................................................................. 2‐9 2.5.1 Sampling Activities ........................................................................................................................................ 2‐9 2.6 Deviation from the Pilot Study Work Plan (PSWP) and Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) ............................................................................................................................................................... 2‐10 2.6.1 Deviation from PSWP and QAPP ........................................................................................................... 2‐10 Section 3 Evaluation Criteria, Results, and Discussion ...................................................................... 3‐1 3.1 Pilot Study Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................................................. 3‐1 3.1.1 MRE ....................................................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1.2 Water Quality ................................................................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1.3 Pre‐Treatment and BCR System Operation and Maintenance Considerations ................... 3‐2 3.2 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 3‐2 3.2.1 MIW Influent ..................................................................................................................................................... 3‐2 3.2.2 BCR Barrels 1 and 2 ....................................................................................................................................... 3‐3 3.2.3 SAPS Pretreatment with BCR 3 and 4.................................................................................................... 3‐9 3.2.4 ChitoRem® Pretreatment with BCR Barrels 5 and 6 .................................................................. 3‐15 3.2.5 ChitoRem® Permeability ......................................................................................................................... 3‐20 3.3 Data Validation and Usability ............................................................................................................................. 3‐21 iii Table of Contents Section 4 Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 4‐1 4.1 Pilot‐Scale Treatability Study Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 4‐1 4.2 Considerations for Future Design ....................................................................................................................... 4‐4 Section 5 References ...................................................................................................................................... 5‐1 List of Tables Table 1‐1 Formosa 1 Adit Water Quality Data Table 1‐2 Composition of Pre‐Treatment Materials Table 1‐3 BCR and Pre‐Treatment Substrate Percentages and Volumes Table 2‐1 Headspace Concentrations after One Month Stagnation Period Table 2‐2 Formosa Treatability Study Sampling and Analysis Summary Table 2‐3 Formosa Treatability Study Field Activity Timeline Table 3‐1 Surface Water Quality Comparison Values Table 3‐2 Analytical Results Table 3‐3 Sulfate Reduction Table 3‐4 Dissolved Metals Removal Efficiency Table 3‐5 Sulfate Reduction List of Figures Figure 1‐1 Pilot‐Scale Treatability Study Water Treatment System Figure 1‐2 Pilot‐Scale Treatability Study Process Flow Diagram (Record Drawing) Figure 2‐1 HDPE Pipe Installation at Adit Portal Figure 2‐2 Feed Tank Installation Figure 2‐3 Pre‐Treatment and BCR Barrel Drainage Manifold Figure 2‐4 Configuration of Treatability System Figure 2‐5 Configuration Example of Influent Diversion using a Timer Valve between BCR 1 and BCR 2 Figure 3‐1 pH Measurements Figure 3‐2 Conductivity Measurements Figure 3‐3 Dissolved Oxygen Measurements Figure 3‐4 Oxidation‐Reduction Potential Measurements Figure 3‐5 Temperature Measurements Figure 3‐6 Daily Temperature Measurements Figure 3‐7 Dissolved Aluminum Concentrations
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pacific Division Meeting Field Trip Guide for the Blue Ledge Mine
    Pacific Division Meeting Field Trip Guide for the Blue Ledge Mine, Siskiyou County, California Field Trip Leaders: Bill Elliott (Dept. of Geology), Kathleen Page (Dept. of Biology), and Steve Petrovic (Dept. of Chemistry), Southern Oregon University Field trip guide written by William S. Elliott, Jr. Southern Oregon University June 12, 2005 Medford Jacksonville Phoenix Applegate Ruch Talent 99 Pompadour Bluff Ashland K L A M Mt. A Ashland T H 5 Applegate o Reservoir W 123 00’ OREGON o N 42 00’ M CALIFORNIA Joe Elliott Creek Creek O U BLUE LEDGE MINE Condrey N Mountain T A I N S 96 N Yreka 0 10 20 km Figure 1: Index map to the travel log and location of the Blue Ledge Mine in Siskiyou County, California. 2 Travel Log Below is a brief travel log that summarizes the geological and historical aspects of the route to the Blue Ledge Mine. Refer to Figure 1 for the location of the communities and routes described in the passages and Figure 2 for a regional geologic map of southwestern Oregon and northern California. Historical information is partially derived from the Southern Oregon Historical Society’s Historic Discovery Drives. The mileages provided are cumulative. 0 miles 0 km Leave the parking lot in front of the Science Building at Southern Oregon University. Travel west on Ashland Street to Mountain Avenue, then turn right heading north. At the intersection with Siskiyou Boulevard (Highway 99), turn left and head northwest toward Ashland. A few blocks beyond downtown Ashland, there are views of the southern part of the Bear Creek Valley.
    [Show full text]
  • Blue Ledge Mine D
    -- -- -------------------------~- '·,._ -~~~ .. :7\~:.":~-=~-;--'i}{/~::}f·:i~_:~t···· b /i:?;,·~··~;&'~Uc<//?~K .,/(Y !}/It? .Vr.'ct/G" Z),,p,,c-15/U.4,,p~.c /10cf /14,.vk/'v~ 6'/Pr a~,# &~c LEZ?c:;;c-u,"r~$A/c; ( U,c?,J.Ra~v#4~~ 5.c-V~--9~ 7A7);?!:1") • Jacksonville,Nugget ... March 2, 1979 "· ,. , . .. .... ... 11 : · ?'~rtt1llt~,,~1t-:fj/~ creek; the latter in. turn. '.em- ':"'i\'f: i 'sontetimesidescrlbed as il' cob-,,'\;"! f'. ; ,,,. plying into the east forif of the . .'' ''\. tacf vein :1 because, of . the. Copper Mining Applegate. There are eleven ·. · variation of the walls in this claims in the group, and while respect. The vein strikes with not patented, they have· all the formation whose general Continues In The been located by survey. They· dii'ection·is ten degrees east of , are given on the accompanying . 'north and also dips with ,the· map under the names of · . : ... formation, ·. the· · angle being ;' i Malone, Cooper, · L. · F. about,... fity ··:degrees .. from\',. Cooper, McVay and :Adams, · .horizontal and'the dip to the/ . ~!~.~M2f!.!?t?s~=s .. W. H. Hamilton, Brown Bear, west. In other words, the Blue'., ··· Malone, Hamilton,. L. H., Ledge-.;•and aH tlie other veins McVay, Lake, S •. G; Adams, of the district, for that matter, · The Blue Ledge Mine D. Malone,· .and . Adams. ·appear to occupy rifts In the(' ·. There is a new :wagon road up laminations · of the. schist, . the _Applegate arid up the east . which· ~~minatlons .are · like ...... · fork to within four miles off . fissures: ; in :, their · general .: ,, · The month of June wit­ be unearthed in the next few the Blue Ledge.
    [Show full text]
  • What Can EPA Do About Abandoned Mines in California?
    What Can EPA Do About Abandoned Mines in California? Debbie Schechter US EPA Region 9, Superfund Division Presented at Reclaiming the Sierra: Community Summit on Mining Impacts November 8, 2010 What Can EPA Do about Abandoned Mines in California? EPA and federal land managers have cleanup authority under CERCLA, or Superfund EPA’s Brownfields Program can provide funding and technical assistance to eligible grantees Prioritization is critical: there 47,000 abandoned mines in California 2 CERCLA Cleanup Authority CERCLA authorizes the federal government to respond to releases or threats of releases that may endanger human health or the environment Private land: EPA Public land: federal land mgmt. agency CERCLA provides for liability for responsible parties and authorizes the federal government to compel parties to clean up sites CERCLA authorizes two kinds of responses: Removals (short term) Remedial actions (at sites on the National Priorities List) Iron Mountain Mine, Redding, CA 3 Clean Water Act Authority Regulates pollutant discharges from point sources into navigable waters Designed to address industrial facilities Applies to current owners/operators Acid mine drainage is considered a point source Newton Mine, Amador County, CA 4 Bodie State Historic Park Mono County, Eastern Sierra 250,000 visitors per year Elevated levels of lead, arsenic and mercury in soils, mill tailings, indoor dust and indoor air 300,000 cy tailings pile north of town with elevated lead and mercury levels; mercury found off-site in creek and
    [Show full text]
  • 26Th Quarterly Literature Update
    Measurement & Monitoring: 26th Quarterly Literature Update These references have been added to the literature database developed for the Measurement and Monitoring Technologies for the 21st Century (21M2) website. The searchable archive of abstracts is located at www.clu-in.org/programs/21m2/litsearch.cfm 1,4-Dioxane: The Impact of Analytical Method -- A Case Study Linton, P.J. (Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc., Tampa, FL); T. Armstrong (Lockheed Martin, Bethesda, MD); J. Alonso and B. Foster (Blasland, Bouck, and Lee, Inc.). The 23rd Annual International Conference on Contaminated Soils, Sediments and Water, 15-18 October 2007, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Northeast Regional Environmental Health Center, Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst. Abstracts, 2007 Commercial laboratories commonly analyze for 1,4-dioxane (CAS 123-91-1) in groundwater by either EPA Method 8260 or 8270, though 1,4-dioxane is not listed for the latter method. Method 8260 generally does not achieve reporting limits that meet regulatory concentrations. Determination of 1,4-dioxane in water at low detection levels also can be accomplished using a modified approach to Method 8270 with isotope dilution. Because of time and sample volume concerns, many laboratories have begun analyzing for 1,4-dioxane using a modified Method 8260 with specific ion monitoring (SIM) GC-MS to improve the detection limits. During recent characterization sampling at a central Florida site in groundwater affected by chlorinated volatile organic compounds and 1,4-dioxane, split samples of groundwater were collected and analyzed by both Method 8270 and 8260 SIM. The difference in reported concentrations of 1,4-dioxane by the two methods was significant, sometimes by orders of magnitude.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Considerations Related to Mining of Non-Fuel Minerals
    Environmental Considerations Related to Mining of Non-Fuel Minerals Course No: P01-002 Credit: 1 PDH James R. Weaver, P.E. Continuing Education and Development, Inc. 22 Stonewall Court Woodcliff Lake, NJ 07677 P: (877) 322-5800 [email protected] Environmental Considerations Related to Mining of Nonfuel Minerals Chapter B of Critical Mineral Resources of the United States—Economic and Environmental Geology and Prospects for Future Supply Professional Paper 1802–B U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Periodic Table of Elements 1A 8A 1 2 hydrogen helium 1.008 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 4.003 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lithium beryllium boron carbon nitrogen oxygen fluorine neon 6.94 9.012 10.81 12.01 14.01 16.00 19.00 20.18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 sodium magnesium aluminum silicon phosphorus sulfur chlorine argon 22.99 24.31 3B 4B 5B 6B 7B 8B 11B 12B 26.98 28.09 30.97 32.06 35.45 39.95 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 potassium calcium scandium titanium vanadium chromium manganese iron cobalt nickel copper zinc gallium germanium arsenic selenium bromine krypton 39.10 40.08 44.96 47.88 50.94 52.00 54.94 55.85 58.93 58.69 63.55 65.39 69.72 72.64 74.92 78.96 79.90 83.79 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 rubidium strontium yttrium zirconium niobium molybdenum technetium ruthenium rhodium palladium silver cadmium indium tin antimony tellurium iodine xenon 85.47 87.62 88.91 91.22 92.91 95.96 (98) 101.1 102.9 106.4 107.9 112.4 114.8 118.7 121.8 127.6 126.9 131.3 55 56 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Considerations Related to Mining of Nonfuel Minerals
    Environmental Considerations Related to Mining of Nonfuel Minerals Chapter B of Critical Mineral Resources of the United States—Economic and Environmental Geology and Prospects for Future Supply Professional Paper 1802–B U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Periodic Table of Elements 1A 8A 1 2 hydrogen helium 1.008 2A 3A 4A 5A 6A 7A 4.003 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 lithium beryllium boron carbon nitrogen oxygen fluorine neon 6.94 9.012 10.81 12.01 14.01 16.00 19.00 20.18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 sodium magnesium aluminum silicon phosphorus sulfur chlorine argon 22.99 24.31 3B 4B 5B 6B 7B 8B 11B 12B 26.98 28.09 30.97 32.06 35.45 39.95 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 potassium calcium scandium titanium vanadium chromium manganese iron cobalt nickel copper zinc gallium germanium arsenic selenium bromine krypton 39.10 40.08 44.96 47.88 50.94 52.00 54.94 55.85 58.93 58.69 63.55 65.39 69.72 72.64 74.92 78.96 79.90 83.79 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 rubidium strontium yttrium zirconium niobium molybdenum technetium ruthenium rhodium palladium silver cadmium indium tin antimony tellurium iodine xenon 85.47 87.62 88.91 91.22 92.91 95.96 (98) 101.1 102.9 106.4 107.9 112.4 114.8 118.7 121.8 127.6 126.9 131.3 55 56 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 cesium barium hafnium tantalum tungsten rhenium osmium iridium platinum gold mercury thallium lead bismuth polonium astatine radon 132.9 137.3 178.5 180.9 183.9 186.2 190.2 192.2 195.1 197.0 200.5 204.4 207.2 209.0 (209) (210)(222) 87 88 104
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident
    Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident San Juan County, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado October 2015 Mission Statements The Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident San Juan County, Colorado Peer reviewed by: U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Denver, Colorado October 2015 Technical Approval The results, findings, and recommendations provided in this Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident are technically sound and consistent with current professional practice. Technical Evaluation of the Gold King Mine Incident Table of Contents page Executive Summary ...............................................................................................1 Introduction............................................................................................................5 Composition of the Evaluation Team ..................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • Overview of USEPA's ORD Technical Outreach and Support Activities
    Overview of USEPA’s ORD Technical Outreach and Support Activities August 12, 2014 Albuquerque, New Mexico Douglas Grosse Office of Research and Development U.S. EPA/ORD/NRMRL Acknowledgements • Doug Grosse, ORD • Greg Gervais, OSWER • Diana Bless, ORD • John McKernan, ORD • Shahid Mahmud, OSWER • Jim Lazorchak, ORD • Michele Mahoney, OSWER • John Hillenbrand, Region 9 • Barbara Butler, ORD • Mark Purcell, Region 6 • Steve Hoffman, OSWER • Steven McDonald, USDA Forest Service • Rob Weber, Region 7 • Roger Yeardley, ORD • Carol Russell, Region 8 • Alina Martin, Leidos • Jim Hanley, Region 8 • Mark Doolan, Region 8 Estimate of Mining Sites in the USA 2 ORD’s Mining Programs • Mine Waste Technology Program (closed) • Engineering Technical Support Center • Technology Transfer Program 3 Collaboration • EPA Program & Regional Offices (focus: OSWER and the Regions) • NRMRL/ORD • Industry Partners • States and Tribes • Western Governors Association • Academia • BLM/Forest Service • DOE/DOD 4 • USGS NRMRL Engineering Technical Support Center (ETSC) • Constructed Wetlands • Bioremediation • MIW Treatment Processes • Liquid/Solid Partitioning • Electrolytic Processes • Sequestration • Capping 5 ORD Technology Transfer and Outreach 1993-2006 Mine Operations, Design, and Closure Conferences, Various 1998 Heavy Metals Contamination Workshop – 150 1998 Mining Workshop, Denver, CO - 300 1999 Heavy Metals Contamination Workshop -180 1999 Pit Lakes Workshop, Reno, NV - 240 2000 Mercury Workshop, San Francisco, CA – 275 2001 Arsenic Workshop, Denver, CO
    [Show full text]
  • Dateentere<L -L01987
    NPS Form 10-900 (3-82) OMB No. 1024-0018 Expires 10-31-87 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received AUG I 0 1987 Inventory—Nomination Form dateentere<L -l01987 See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name historic Reddy. Dr. John F. and Mary 3 House Number of rnntrihuting and or common Same Number of non-contributing 2. Location (detached garage, non-historic street & number 122 Oregon Terrace N/A,hot for publication city, town Medford N/A vicinity of Second Congressional District state Oregon code 41 county Jackson code 029 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district public X occupied agriculture museum _X_ building(s) _^_ private unoccupied commercial park structure both work in progress educational X private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious __ object N/A in process X yes: restricted government __ scientific N//\ being considered "noyes: unrestricted industrial transportation military Other- 4. Owner of Property name John and Judy Veteran street & number 122 Oregon Terrace city, town Medford vicinity of state Oregon 97504 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Jackson County Courthouse street & number 10 South Oakdale Avenue city, town Medford state Oregon 97501 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Statewide Inventory of title Historic Properties has this property been determined eligible? __ yes _X_ no date 1986 federal state county local depository for survey records State Historic Preservation Office. 525 Trade Street SE city, town Salem state Oregon 97310 7.
    [Show full text]
  • PACIFIC NORTHWEST EXPERIENCE Overview
    Overview PACIFIC NORTHWEST EXPERIENCE Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc. Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, Inc. A Full-Service Engineering and Construction Resource Intro Engineering/Remediation Resources Group, ERRG is led and managed by seasoned Inc. (ERRG) provides a broad professionals with years of experience in scope of engineering, construction, and consulting and construction, and provides remediation services. Our team consists of a wide array of engineering services nearly 300 full-time employees, including ranging from initial site investigations environmental, civil and geotechnical and characterization through design and engineers, geologists, soil physicists, construction. Working in multidisciplinary scientists, construction managers, teams, ERRG’s staff routinely designs, construction superintendents, equipment implements, and manages projects involving operators, certified hazardous waste planning and development, subcontractor technicians, and administrative personnel. coordination, budget tracking, regulatory Our team’s broad base of environmental, agency interaction, feasibility studies, plans geotechnical, and construction backgrounds and specifications, construction, and enables ERRG to provide the full spectrum construction management services. of turnkey services to our public and private sector clients. Incorporated in 1997, ERRG currently has offices in Martinez, San Francisco, Sacramento, and Tustin, California; Seattle, and Spokane, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Honolulu, Hawaii; and Phoenix,
    [Show full text]
  • By Open-File Report 83-497 This Report Is Preliminary and Has Not
    MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE CONDREY MOUNTAIN ROADLESS AREA SISKIYOU COUNTY, CALIFORNIA by 1 2 R. G. Coleman, Ron Mayerle, R. C. Jachens, and David B. Smith Open-File Report 83-497 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed*for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards and stratigraphic nomenclature U.S. Geological Survey 2 U.S. Bureau of Mines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Oregon, on Oregon State Highway 238 then by way of U.S. Forest Service roads that follow Elliot Creek eastward to Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law the study area. Access to the southern part of the area is 88-577, September 3, 196*) and related acts, the U.S. by Forest Service second-class roads from California State Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been Highway 96, called the Klamath River Highway. conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or GEOLOGY, GEOCHEMISTRY, AND GEOPHYSICS "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the PERTAINING TO RESOURCE ASSESSMENT National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas Geology under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation in the Wilderness The Condrey Mountain Roadless Area is within a System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the structural dome that is surrounded by the metamorphic suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such rocks of the western Paleozoic and Triassic belt in the surveys are to be made available to the public and be Siskiyou Mountains of California and Oregon (Irwin, 1972).
    [Show full text]
  • National Conference on Mining-Influenced Waters Approaches for Characterization, Source Control and Treatment
    | EPA/600/R-15/088 | www.epa.gov/research | National Conference on Mining-Influenced Waters Approaches for Characterization, Source Control and Treatment August 12-14, 2014 Sheraton Albuquerque Uptown Hotel • Albuquerque, New Mexico Sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Research and Development Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Region 6, Dallas, TX U.S. EPA Proceedings of National Conference on Mining-Influenced Waters: Approaches for Characterization, Source Control and Treatment Edited by: Diana Bless Douglas Grosse EPA Number: EPA/600/R-15/088 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency), through its Office of Research and Development (ORD), sponsored a conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico on August 12- 14, 2014. This document was compiled by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) under Contract No. EP-W-09-032 from presentations and open discussion at the conference. The views expressed in these Proceedings are those of the individual authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the EPA. Scientists in EPA’s Office of Research and Development have prepared the EPA sections, and those sections have been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for publication. Any mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. The references contained within the presentation abstracts have been provided by the speakers. For questions regarding abstract content or
    [Show full text]