DRC-2019-017245 - 0901a06880baa5e5

DRC-201,9- 0172/1-5
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels.com ENERGY FUELS
December 23, 2019
Sent VIA E-MAIL AND EXPEDITED DELIVERY
Mr. Ty L. Howard
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Div of Waste Management and Radiation Control
DEC 3 0 2010
Re: Response to Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("DWMRC")
Interrogatories for the Cells 5A and 5B License and Groundwater Discharge Permit
Amendment Request
Dear Mr. Howard:
This letter responds to DWMRC's letter dated January 10, 2019 regarding the DWMRC
interrogatories to the Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") amendment request to the
Radioactive Materials License ("RML") and the Groundwater Discharge Permit ("GWDP") for
Cells 5A and 5B.
For ease of review, only the interrogatory statement and the basis for the interrogatory have been
repeated in italics, below, followed by EFIZI's response. Interrogatories which do not require an
EFRI response are not repeated.
DWMRC Comment
2.2 Corporate Organization and Qualifications
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 2.2(1):
Provide an updated corporate organizational chart and identify which corporate o wers who are
authorized to request changes to the RML.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
There have been several changes to the corporate organization since the February 2007 License
Renewal Application. Therefore, an updated organizational chart is warranted.
EFRI Response:
An updated Mill Management organizational chart is included in Attachment A. Corporate
Officers and Corporate Environmental Staff are authorized to request/transmit changes to the
December 23, 2019
Sent VIA E-MAIL AND EXPEDITED DELIVERY
Mr. Ty L. Howard
Director
Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
195 North 1950 West
P.O. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd. Suite 600
Lakewood, CO, US, 80228
303 974 2140
www.energyfuels.oom
Re: Response to Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control ("DWMRC")
Interrogatories for the Cells 5A and 5B License and Groundwater Discharge Permit
Amendment Request
Dear Mr. Howard:
This letter responds to DWMRC' s letter dated January 10, 2019 regarding the DWMRC
interrogatories to the Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. ("EFRI") amendment request to the
Radioactive Materials License ("RML") and the Groundwater Discharge Permit ("GWDP") for
Cells 5A and 5B.
For ease of review, only the interrogatory statement and the basis for the interrogatory have been
repeated in italics, below, followed by EFRI's response. Interrogatories which do not require an
EFRI response are not repeated.
DWMRC Comment
2.2 Corporate Organization and Qualifications
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 2.2(1):
Provide an updated corporate organizational chart and identify which corporate officers who are
authorized to request changes to the RML.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
There have been several changes to the corporate organization since the February 2007 License
Renewal Application. Therefore, an updated organizational chart is warranted.
EFRI Response:
An updated Mill Management organizational chart is included in Attachment A. Corporate
Officers and Corporate Environmental Staff are authorized to request/transmit changes to the
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 2 of 20
RML. The following is a list of position titles authorized to request/transmit requested changes to
theRML:
Officers
• President and CEO
• Chief Operating Officer
• CFO, General Counsel, Corporate Secretary
Non-Officers
• Senior Director Regulatory Affairs
• Quality Assurance Manager (not shown on organizational chart -direct report to Senior
Director Regulatory Affairs)
DWMRC Comment
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 2.2(2):
Provide documentation of the qualifications of the Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) and Radiation
Safety Staff. This documentation may include but not limited to resumes and training
certificates.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The July 12, 2018 application for RML amendment stated that Mr. David E. Turk is the RSO for
the White Mesa Mill and it references the February 2007 License Renewal Application for the
documentation of his qualification. However, Mr. Turk is no longer employed by EFRI and the
Mill has a new RSO and changes to its radiation safety staff. Therefore, the documentation of
their qualifications needs to be updated.
EFRI Response:
The qualifications of the Radiation Safety Staff are described below. For privacy reasons, resumes
and training records will be made available to DWMRC for review at the Mill facility.
Radiation Safety Officer (RSO)
Terry Slade, as the Mill RSO, has technical qualifications that satisfy the criteria in Reg. Guide
8.31, paragraph 2.4.1. Mr. Slade has over 20 years of radiation monitoring and radiation safety
experience. Specifically, Mr. Slade has been a health physics technician at the Mill for more than
19 years from 1999 to 2018, Assistant RSO from 2012 -July 13, 2018 and RSO since July 13,
2018. The review team considers this relevant work experience to satisfy the experience
requirements specified in paragraph 2.4.1 of Reg. Guide 8.31. Mr. Slade has taken over 4 weeks
of specialized classroom training in health physics specifically applicable to uranium milling
during his career and attends refresher training on uranium mill health physics every 2 years (RSO
refresher).
Mr. Slade has a thorough knowledge of the proper application and use of all health physics
equipment used in the Mill, the chemical and analytical procedures used for radiological sampling
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 3 of 20
and monitoring, methodologies used to calculate personnel exposure to uranium and its daughters,
and a thorough understanding of the uranium milling process and equipment used in the Mill and
how the hazards are generated and controlled during the milling process.
Assi tant Radiation Safety Officer
Garrin Palmer, as the Assistant RSO, has technical qualifications that satisfy the criteria in Reg.
Guide 8.31, paragraph 2.4.1. Specifically, Mr. Palmer has a Bachelors' degree in business
management from Utah Valley University. Mr. Palmer has a Master's Degree in business
administration from Southern Utah University. Mr. Palmer has served as a health physics
technician since he completed the applicable training in February 2010. The review team considers
this relevant work experience to satisfy the experience requirements specified in paragraph 2.4.1
of Reg. Guide 8.31. Mr. Palmer has taken over 4 weeks of specialized classroom training in health
physics specifically applicable to uranium milling during his career and attends refresher training
on uranium mill health physics every 2 years (RSO refresher). In addition, Mr. Palmer completed
the Applied Health Physics certification course at the Oakridge National Laboratory in October
2019.
Mr. Palmer has a thorough knowledge of the proper application and use of all health physics
equipment used in the Mill, the chemical and analytical procedures used for radiological sampling
and monitoring, methodologies used to calculate personnel exposure to uranium and its daughters,
and a thorough understanding of the uranium milling process and equipment used in the Mill and
how the hazards are generated and controlled during the milling process.
HeaJth Physics Technicians
The Mill currently employs three health physics technicians, as discussed below.
Mr. Justin Perkins has qualifications equivalent to those specified in Reg. Guide 8.31, paragraph
2.4.2 (2).
Mr. Perkins joined the Radiation Safety Staff in March 2012 and has a year of college coursework.
Mr. Perkins attended the radiation safety course at Ludlum in November 2011. He completed the
Mill's on-site Radiation Technician training in January 2011.
Mr. Perkins has at least four weeks of generalized training (including external and on-the-job
training) in radiation health protection relevant to uranium recovery facilities and over eight years
of work experience at the Mill using sampling and analytical laboratory procedures that involve
health physics, industrial hygiene, and industrial safety measures to be applied in a uranium
recovery facility.
Mr. Heath Latham has qualifications equivalent to those specified in Reg. Guide 8.31, paragraph
2.4.2 (2).
Mr. Latham joined the Radiation Safety Staff on February 2012 and served as a Health Physics
Technician from February 2012 through September 2014, at which time he was transferred to
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 4 of 20
operations. Mr. Latham was transferred back to the Radiation Safety Staff in May 2016. Mr.
Latham has a year of college credits. Mr. Latham attended the radiation safety course at Ludlum
in February 2012. He completed the Mill's on-site Radiation Technician training in February of
2012.
Mr. Latham has approximately four weeks of generalized training (including external and on-the-
job training) in radiation health protection relevant to uranium recovery facilities and over 5 1/2
years of work experience at the Mill using sampling and analytical laboratory procedures that
involve health physics, industrial hygiene, and industrial safety measures to be applied in a
uranium recovery facility.
Mr. Latham has a working knowledge of the proper operation of health physics instruments used
at the Mill, surveying and sampling techniques, and personnel dosimetry requirements.
Mr. Kenneth Roberts has qualifications equivalent to those specified in Reg. Guide 8.31, paragraph
2.4.2 (2).
Mr. Kenneth Roberts was employed at the Mill from March 2008 through October 2013 in
operations. Mr. Roberts joined the Radiation Safety Staff in 2014 and served as a Health Physics
Technician from September 2014 to March 2015. Mr. Roberts was rehired as a health physics
technician in July 2016 and has served as a health physics technician since that time. Mr. Roberts
completed the Mill's on-site Radiation Technician training in September 2014.
Mr. Roberts has approximately four weeks of generalized training (including external and on-the-
job training) in radiation health protection relevant to uranium recovery facilities and over 3 years
of work experience at the Mill using sampling and analytical laboratory procedures that involve
health physics, industrial hygiene, and industrial safety measures to be applied in a uranium
recovery facility.
Mr. Roberts has a working knowledge of the proper operation of health physics instruments used
at the Mill, surveying and sampling techniques, and personnel dosimetry requirements.
DWMRC Comment
3. Design of Impoundments SA and SB
3.1 Impoundment Design
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.1(1):
Indicate which of the two proposed liner systems is the preferred option. Demonstrate that the
proposed liner constitutes best available technology.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
Two liner systems were proposed by EFRI, one consisting of three synthetic membranes and one
of two synthetic membranes underlain by a geosynthetic clay layer. The option used in the design
and construction of Impoundment 4B consisted of two synthetic liners with an underlying
geosynthetic clay layer (GCL). The third artificial membrane in the alternative system included
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 5 of 20
in the current proposal will function considerably differently than the GCL. Both systems
proposed have advantages and disadvantages. Data are required to evaluate the operation of the
two options and to determine, on balance, which might satisfy the current definition of best
available technology.
EFRI needs to select the best option based off a comparison matrix. EFRI needs to demonstrate
which option is best available technology and defend the conclusion. If both designs are equivalent
then please justify the option selected.
EFRI Response:
EFRI submitted two liner system designs, both providing an equal level of containment and
complying with best available technology. EFRI has selected to utilize Option B -Double Liner
with GCL for consistency with previously permitted cells. A comparison matrix was developed,
as requested, to compare the two-liner system design options related to general approach, overall
protection of human health and the environment, compliance with regulations, effectiveness and
permanence, implementability, and cost. Both liner systems were comparatively the same with
slight differences in implementability and cost. The comparison matrix is included as Attachment
B.
DWMRC Comment
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.1(2):
If the two synthetic plus GCL layer option is selected, then resolve conflict between manufacturer
specification and EFRI design.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The specification for liner installation Option A (three synthetic membranes) calls for rock
protrusions above the surface of the prepared sub grade of no more than 0. 7 inch. The design
report should clearly show that this standard comports with the manufacturer's recommendations
for sub grade preparation. § 3.4.5.2, Secondary GCL Liner, of the Design Study Report, treats this
topic while discussing the option using the GCL. On p. 16, in the first bullet, the Report states:
"The puncture protection analysis of the GCL indicated that a 3 oz/yd2 geotextile and 6 oz/yd2
geotextile above and below (respectively) the GCL and a maximum subgrade protrusion height of
Vi-inch will provide puncture protection for the secondary HDPE geomembrane. The design
analysis considers a 60-mil geomembrane placed directly on the subgrade which is more
conservative than the GCL placed directly on the subgrade and beneath the 60-mil
geomembrane." This addresses a 0.5-inch protrusion versus the 0. 7-inch protrusion allowable
under the proposed specification. This also includes a GCL. With these differences, this will not
demonstrate the efficacy of a third membrane, absent a GCL, placed directly on a surface with
0. 7-inch allowable protrusions.
EFRI Response:
The subgrade shall be prepared such that no protrusions greater than 0.5-inch are present in
accordance with the requirements of a geosynthetic clay liner design. The triple liner option will
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 6 of 20
not be pursued for Cells SA and SB. The design documents were updated accordingly to reflect
the O.S-inch subgrade protrusion requirement. A redline strike out version of the design documents
are included as Attachment C. After Director approval of the revised design document, EFRI will
submit a final clean copy.
DWMRC Comment
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.1(3):
As per regulatory requirements, please indicate between each phase of the impoundment use
( construction, non-conventional use, conventional use and decommissioning) Director approval
shall be obtained.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
Energy Fuels intends to construct the impoundments in sequence, as needed, to use the
impoundments initially as nonconventional (fluid management) impoundments, and later convert
them to conventional use (tailings plant-or in-situ leach-generated lle.(2) byproduct material
disposal) as needed. Director approval is required for each stage of the life cycle: planning,
construction, service as a nonconventional impoundment, service as a conventional impoundment,
and decommissioning.
EFRI Response:
Pursuant to Ground Water Discharge Permit ("GWDP"), Section I.D.4, EFRI will obtain Director
approval prior to construction, modification, or operation of new waste or wastewater disposal,
treatment, or storage facilities. In addition, pursuant to GWDP, Section I.D.9 and RML Section
9.13, EFRI will complete reclamation activities in accordance with the approved Reclamation
Plan.
Specific details regarding the operation and maintenance of the cells in each phase of the
impoundment' s use will be provided in revised documents, including but not limited to, the
Discharge Minimization Technology ("DMT") Plan, Best Available Technology and Operation
and Management Plan ("BAT O&M Plan"), the Tailings Management Plan, the Ground Water
Quality Assurance Plan ("GW QAP"), the Contingency Plan, the Environmental Protection
Manual, Tailings and Wastewater Sampling and Analysis Plan ("Tailings SAP"), and the Storm
Water Best Management Practices Plan ("SWBMPP"). Director approval for construction will be
obtained prior to the commencement of construction. The impoundments will not be placed into
service until Director approval is received for all operation and monitoring plans and details and
construction is complete. We will not commence disposal of tailings solids into Cell SA or SB
(i.e., use it as a conventional impoundment) without first obtaining the concurrence of the Director
that doing so will not result in the Mill having more than two conventional impoundments in
operation at any one time.
Specific details of decommissioning will be described in the approved Reclamation Plan.
Decommissioning will not commence unless prior Director approval is obtained.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 7 of 20
DWMRC Comment
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.1(4):
Please revise the tailings dewatering forecast calculations to reflect updated information on
tailings transmissivity included in the Tailings Data Analysis Report (2014) and any additional
data obtained while installing piezometers in Impoundment 2 (2017) or monitoring those
piezometers since installation.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The slimes drain calculations bear a completion date of December 13, 2012. Energy Fuels has
undertaken considerable work since that date to improve understanding of the characteristics,
especially hydraulic transmissivity, of the tailings. The Design Study Report omits mention of this
additional work. A portion of this additional work was presented in the Tailings Data Analysis
Report (2014 ), and more data was gathered while installing piezometers in lmpoundment 2 (2017).
If the investigative work has resulted in a better understanding of the tailings performance, the
design would benefit from that input. If not, a statement to that effect could be helpful.
EFRI Response:
The tailings dewatering forecast calculations have been updated to incorporate additional data.
The updated tailings dewatering forecast calculations are included in Appendix D of the revised
design package included as Attachment C. After Director approval of the revised design
document, EFRI will submit a final clean copy.
DWMRC Comment
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.1(5):
The plan must fully address decommissioning, including incorporation of a fully-approved cover
system.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The decommissioning plan provided with the design refers to the evapotranspirative cover system
currently under study but includes no reference to the currently approved cover system. Without
an approved cover system in the decommissioning plan, the proposal cannot receive Director
approval.
EFRI Response:
The decommissioning updates provided with the design, as submitted in EFRI's July 12, 2018,
amendment request, included a proposal to modify the current approved Reclamation Plan,
Revision 5. lB, by adding modified design details, showing the changes needed to extend the
evapotranspiration ("ET") cover system, to incorporate Cells 5A and 5B. This modified design
was proposed to be included as Attachment F to the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5. lB. The
proposed modifications in Attachment F included redline page changes that, upon approval of the
license amendment request, would be considered errata/replacement pages to the Reclamation
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 8 of 20
Plan, Revision 5. lB and, prior to the start of construction of Cells 5A or 5B, would be incorporated
into a full copy of the revised Reclamation Plan, Revision 5 .1 C.
While it is correct that the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5. lB refers to the ET cover system currently
under study (the "Proposed Cover System"), the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.lB also references
(i.e., provides a "reversion" to) the approved rock armor cover design (the "Existing Cover
System") if the test of the Proposed Cover System does not meet the performance criteria of the
study. As stated in Section 5.3 (Page 5-2) of the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.lB:
"If the Cell 2 Primary Test Section and Supplemental Test Section fail to meet the required
performance criteria and follow up actions (to be identified in the [Stipulated Consent
Agreement dated February 23, 2017 between EFRI and DWMRC (the "SCA")]), then:
a) Cell 2
EFRI will complete Cell 2 Phase 2 cover placement by placing Layers 2, 3, and 4 of the
Existing Cover System presented in Reclamation Plan Revision 3.2b (Denison, 201 lb) (the
"Existing Cover System") on top of the Phase 1 layers, as follows:
i. the Cell 2 Phase 1 cover system (which includes the Proposed Cover System Layers 1
and 2) would remain in place;
ii. the Existing Cover System Layer 2, comprised of 1 ft (30.5cm) Radon Barrier
(compacted clay), would be placed on top of the Cell 2 Phase 1 cover;
iii. The Existing Cover System Layer 3 comprised of 2 ft (61 cm) Frost Barrier (random
fill), would be placed on top of the Existing Cover System Layer 2; and
iv. the Existing Cover System Layer 4, comprised of 3 in (7.6 cm) Rock Armor would be
placed on top of Existing Cover System Layer 3.
b) Other Tailings Management System Cells being Reclaimed during Cell 2 Test Period
In the event that any other tailings management system cells are to be reclaimed during the
Cell 2 Test Period, such cells will be reclaimed by placing Phase 1 of the Proposed Cover
System on the cells, and then waiting until the Cell 2 test is completed. Thereafter,
reclamation of the cell will be completed in the same manner as Cell 2, in accordance with
the SCA and Section 6.0 below. If Phase 1 of the Proposed Cover System is not completed
during the Cell 2 Test Period for any such cells, then such cells may be reclaimed with the
Existing Cover System; and
c) Other Tailings Management System Cells Being Reclaimed after Cell 2 Test Period
Upon final reclamation in accordance with Section 6.0 below, the other tailings
management system cells which had not commenced reclamation during the Cell 2 Test
Period, would be reclaimed with the Existing Cover System."
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 9 of 20
The requirements of Section 5.3 of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5. lB, would remain unchanged in
Reclamation Plan, 5.lC, as no redline page changes were proposed to Section 5.3 (Page 5-2) in
EFRI's July 12, 2018, amendment request. That is, references to "Other Tailings Management
Cells" (as described above), would apply to Cells 5A and 5B just as they do to Cells 3, 4A and 4B.
One aspect of the decommissioning plan that was not included in EFRI's July 12, 2018,
amendment request, however, was a plan view of reclamation features based on the Existing Cover
System design, in the event that the test of the Proposed Cover System does not meet the
performance criteria of the study. To account for this omission, included in Attachment D to this
letter, is a Stantec Consulting Services Inc. ("Stantec") submission dated August 16, 2019, which
includes Figure 1 Plan View of Reclamation Features, based on the Existing Cover System. In
comparison with the Proposed Cover System, which was described in a letter from Stantec dated
June 15, 2018, and included in Appendix Hof the Environmental Report in EFRI's July 12, 2018,
amendment request. The Existing Cover System for Cells 5A and 5B would have a 1.2% design
slope vs. a 0.8% design slope for the Proposed Cover System.
DWMRC Comment
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.1(6):
Cited standards should be complete and unambiguous.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The construction specifications call out ASTM D 1557 without reference to which revision of the
standard was intended. A complete reference should indicate which revision is required. The
current revision is Revision 12el. The specifications should reference this revision or such later
revision as is in force at the time of construction.
The narrative calls for applying sufficient compactive energy to achieve 90% of ASTM D 1557.
Higher compactive effort should lead to reduced settlement and greater structural integrity.
However, this additional effort may not be warranted. Please discuss the rationale for selecting
the 90% threshold for this specification.
EFRI Response:
The design documents have been updated to reflect the current revision of the ASTM D 1557
standard: ASTM D 1557-12e 1. The compaction requirement of 90 percent of the maximum dry
density as measured by ASTM D 1557-12el (modified Proctor) is based on the engineered fill
strength testing performed. Representative engineered fill samples were remolded for triaxial
shear testing (ASTM D 4767) to 90% of the maximum modified Proctor dry unit weight and at
optimum moisture content (Appendix E of the Design Report); specifying this in-situ density
provides reasonable assurances that as-built strength will meet the design strength. The revised
design package is included as Attachment C. After approval of the revised design document, EFRI
will submit a final clean copy.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 10 of 20
DWMRC Comment
3.2 Liner Compatibility
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.2(1):
Provide information ( data) on liner chemical compatibility with chlorofonn at the levels found in
tailing impoundments
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The Design Study Report states that the design incorporates a liner selected for its resistance to
chemical attack. The site has a chloroform plume currently under remediation. The remediation
strategy for the chloroform plume includes directing the chloroform-laden water to a non-
conventional impoundment.
The application package included a technical memorandum that addressed generally the liner
compatibility issue (Tischler, 2018, included as Appendix E to Attachment A to the License
Amendment Request), but the memorandum only addressed acids and metal salts. The
memorandum was silent regarding compatibility with chloroform. Recognizing that chloroform
plume remediation may continue during the active life of these impoundments, consideration of
liner resistance to chlorofonn seems necessary.
According to manufacturer specifications, HDPE liners do not pe,form well with respect to
chloroform. Monitoring results indicate the presence of chloroform in fluids in the impoundments.
The observed concentrations are less than 100 parts per trillion (Denison Mines 2010a, 2010b
and 2011). Please provide a technical justification for the use of HDPE with the observed
concentrations of chloroform in the fluid to be retained.
EFRI Response:
Manufacturer recommendations regarding liner material performance and solvent resistivity are
based on performance of liner material when exposed to full strength (pure) solvents. HDPE liners,
or any other polymeric liner material for that matter, may undergo polymeric bond breakage
(scission) when exposed to pure volatile organic solvent compounds, including chlorinated
aliphatic solvents such as chloroform.
However, the Cell 5A and Cell 5B liners, which will only receive chloroform from groundwater
extracted through the Mill's chloroform capture system, will never be exposed to full strength
chloroform under any conceivable scenario. Chloroform does not exist as pure product in the
groundwater system, and has never been pumped from any chloroform capture well at higher than
61,000 parts per billion (ppb). Moreover, after introduction into either tailings Cell SA or 5B, the
chloroform concentration will be further reduced/diluted by combination with up to 400 million
(400,000,000) gallons of tailings solutions, and/or up to 1,900,000 dry tons of tailings solids in
either cell.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 11 of 20
As stated by UDEQ in Interrogatory Statement 3.2(1), above, the observed concentration will be
on the order of 100 parts per trillion ("ppt"). For conservatism, it may be assumed that the
concentrations of chloroform in the tailings system may range from 2 to 130 parts per billion
("ppb"), as evidenced by ongoing tailings cell solution monitoring data. (EFRI 2018). It is
reasonable to evaluate performance of the cell liners in conditions representative of the actual
tailings cell conditions, that is, chloroform concentrations on the order of ppb and higher in
aqueous solutions.
An EPA study (Haxo 1991) evaluated polyethylene and five other liner materials exposed for 56
months to typical landfill leachates containing chloroform from 15 to 1,300 ppb, in combination
with metals, leachate salts, hydrocarbon VOCs, other halogenated organics, and low pH. The
study concluded that after 56 months of exposure, the physical changes in all samples were
minimal. Of the six, the polyethylene, which in this case was low density polyethylene (LDPE),
best retained its original properties. Per the EPA report, HDPE, which is proposed for Cells 5A
and 5B, has even greater chemical resistance, durability and adaptability than the LDPE which
was tested.
In addition to short-term laboratory exposure testing, performance monitoring of HDPE has
included property testing after relatively long periods of service in contact with complex leachate
solutions. Eithe and Koerner (1997) described a case in which an HDPE geomembrane was used
as part of a double liner system for a landfill and was evaluated after eight years of exposure (1989
through 1996) to landfill leachates (which typically contained metals, anions, organics,
hydrocarbons and chlorinated and non-chlorinated solvents), as well as exposure to methane, and
static and dynamic stresses. Samples of the actual landfill liner were exhumed and underwent
physical, mechanical and endurance tests. Results indicated no apparent degradation of the HDPE
geomembrane properties since the results were still within the range of data generated for the
original material at the time of installation.
The Maisonneuve team, (Maisonneuve, et.al.1997) performed a series of accelerated aging tests
under aggressive chemical, mechanical and temperature conditions on seamed and un-seamed
HDPE geomembrane samples. This study prepared an aqueous solution of six solvents each which
represented a class of common aging-triggering compounds, such as aromatic hydrocarbons,
aliphatic hydrocarbons, and ketones. Perchloroethylene (also called tetrachloroethylene or PCE)
was chosen to represent the class of chlorinated aliphatic solvents (which includes chloroform).
PCE was incorporated in the aging solution at 0.1 g/1 ( 100 ppm or 100,000 ppb ), or approximately
100 times higher than the highest chloroform concentration measured to date in the Mill's tailings
system. The PCE was one of six components in an overall solution that contained a total of 43.3
g/L (43,300 ppm) of organics used to expose HDPE liner samples. The chemically aged and non-
aged (control) samples all underwent visual and analytical examination and were all stressed by a
number of thermal and mechanical breakage tests. The study concluded that there were no
physico-chemical changes in HDPE material except a loss of antioxidants; HDPE geomembranes
have a good resistance to the applied mechanical stresses, despite the typical plasticizing effect
that showed up after 4 months; and analytical methods reveal no differences between non-aged
and aged samples.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 12 of 20
In summary, based on multiple studies, polyethylene geomembrane liners show good resistivity
and durability, and perform well in conditions which include levels of chloroform or similar
chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbon solvents hundreds to thousands of times higher than will be
encountered in the Mill's tailings cells.
REFERENCES
EFRI 2018 Annual Tailings Wastewater Monitoring Report November 2018
Haxo, Henry E. Jr., 1991. Compatibility of Flexible Membrane Liners and Municipal Solid
Waste Leachates. Matrecom, Inc. Alameda, CA, EPA/600/2-91-040. August 1991
Eithe, Anthony W. and Koerner, George R. 1997. Assessment of HDPE Geomembrane Liner
Performance in a Waste Landfill Double Liner System after Eight Years of Service Article in
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 15(4):277-287 · August 1997
Catherine Maisonneuve, Patrick Pierson, C. Duquennoi, Anne Morin. Accelerated aging tests for
geomembranes used in landfills. 6. International Landfill Symposium (Sardinia'97), Oct 1997,
St. Margherita di Pula, Italy. pp.207-216, 1997.
DWMRC Comment
3.3 Modification of Restricted Area Boundary
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 3.3(1):
Please describe how the new restricted area fence will be constructed (i.e. barbed wire or chain-
link). Include the height and length of the new fence. Describe if a chain-link fence will be built
around 5A/5B similar to 4A/4B. Document how the fence will deter human intruders and wildlife.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
In Section 3.3 of the Environmental Report EFRI states that the restricted area fence will be moved
to the south. Details on the type and construction of the fence were not included.
EFRI Response:
The restricted area fence is a 3.5-foot barbed wire fence that separates the restricted area from the
southern property. The southern portion of this fence will be removed and a new 3.5-foot barbed
wire fence will be constructed ( extended) to the south of the current fence, at a length of
approximately 8,500 feet (see Figure 1 in Attachment D), to maintain separation of the restricted
area.
The current fence around Cell 4A/4B is a six-foot game fence constructed of steel posts and wire
mesh. The fence entirely encompasses tailings Cells 4A and 4B. There are gates installed at the
necessary access points. This fence has been an effective deterrent to human intruders and wildlife
and as such Cell 5A/5B will have a similar fence installed. Necessary signage will be installed
after the fence is constructed.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 13 of 20
DWMRC Comment
5.2 Radiological Impact (MILDOS Dose Modeling)
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 5.2(1):
The Licensee had not provided the MILDOS Dose Modeling at the time of these interrogatories.
Therefore, any interrogatories associated with the modeling will be done in another interrogatory
document.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The Division has not received or reviewed this document.
EFRI Response:
MILDOS modeling is included as Attachment G.
DWMRC Comment
6. Effluent and Environmental Monitoring Programs
6.1 Proposed Additional Groundwater Monitoring
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 6.1(1):
Conduct a well spacing model based on the proposed 5A/5B impoundments which simulates
potential leaks from these proposed impoundments to ensure that a minimum 95% monitoring
efficiency is achieved and that potential leaks will be timely detected.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
A meeting between EFR and Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC)
representatives, regarding the upcoming proposal for tailings impoundments 5A and 5B was held
in the DEQ office on April 12, 2018. During a portion of the meeting, issues related to the design
of a groundwater monitoring network for the new impoundments were discussed. During the
meeting, DWMRC discussed that the new monitoring wells need to show a 95% well efficiency
based on well spacing modeling, taking into consideration local hydraulic parameters and
potential small leaks from the tailings impoundment bottom on representative parts of the
impoundment to ensure timely detection of contamination potentially released from the proposed
new tailings impoundments. It was also discussed that current information regarding
groundwater flow directions and the delineation of dry zanes in the proposed impoundment
construction area will need to be further clarified for the localized area of the proposed new
impoundments.
Based on the April 12, 2018 meeting and the July 12, 2018 EFR Impoundment 5A/5B application,
this portion of the interrogatory is to ensure that EFR has prepared and submitted adequate
documentation, evaluation and modeling regarding groundwater monitoring requirements,
groundwater flow and gradient descriptions required by groundwater rules and regulations.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 14 of 20
In addition to the April 12, 2018 meeting, the subject of the well spacing analysis was discussed
amongst DWMRC, EFR and Hydro Geo Chem representatives via conference call on June 7, 2018.
Per that conference call EFR reported that a spacing analysis had been done previously for
installation of monitoring wells at the Mill tailings Impoundments 1 and 2.
EFR subsequently submitted the September 25, 2001 Hydro Geo Chem Monitoring Well
Assessment Report and a cover letter written by Hydro Geo Chem via e-mail on June 11, 2018.
Although not submitted with the subsequent EFR Request, the DWMRC review of the September
25, 2001 Assessment Report is included in this interrogatory to determine adequacy and
completeness of the previously submitted document related to the Impoundments 5A/5B Request.
Previous DWMRC review of the September 25, 2001 Hydro Geo Chem Report was conducted,
when the document was originally submitted, to evaluate the effectiveness of the monitoring well
network at that time; and to evaluate potential improvements if additional wells were constructed
between the existing tailings Impoundments 1 and 2. The EFR conclusion was that the existing
network was adequate. Contrary to this, it was found by the Utah Division of Radiation Control
that additional monitoring wells were justified between existing tailings impoundments to ensure
timely detection of a potential tailings wastewater release.
The 2001 evaluation uses a 3-dimensional finite difference numerical flow and transport model,
TRACRN, developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratories. Based on current DWMRC review,
DWMRC is concerned that model inputs should be re-evaluated to determine whether updated or
more relevant information regarding hydraulic inputs could be used. This includes both field
determined input criteria ( e.g. Permeability) as well as criteria input based on cited literature ( e.g.
Dispersivity ).
EFRI Response:
As discussed in HGC (2019), a 3-D numerical flow and transport model was constructed to test
the ability of proposed perched groundwater monitoring wells to detect hypothetical leaks from
proposed cells SA and SB. The numerical modeling report is included as Attachment E. The
simulated leaks are considered hypothetical because these cells will be equipped with multiple
liners having intra-liner leak detection systems making it highly unlikely that a leak could ever
develop or, should one develop, go undetected before any groundwater impacts could develop.
Figure 6.1 (1) included in Appendix E provides second quarter, 2019 perched water level contours
and the locations of proposed wells. In addition to wells MW-41 through MW-45 initially
proposed in HGC (2018), Figure 6.1(1) includes proposed wells MW-46 and MW-47; and
proposed piezometer DR-26. MW-42 through MW-4S are located along the downgradient
(southern) margin of proposed cells 5A and 5B; DR-26 and MW-41 are located cross-gradient
along the western margin of proposed cell 5A; and wells MW-46 and MW-47, and existing well
MW-17, are located cross-to up-gradient of proposed cell 5B.
Based on the water level contours provided in Figure 6.1 ( 1 ), perched groundwater beneath
proposed cells 5A and SB is expected to migrate to the south-southwest ("SSW") toward perched
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 15 of 20
groundwater discharge point Ruin Spring. Ruin Spring is located more than 8,200 feet
downgradient (SSW) of the proposed cells; and the southern property boundary more than 6,800
feet downgradient (SSW) of the proposed cells. Existing perched groundwater monitoring wells
MW-3A and MW-20, located relatively far downgradient (SSW) of the proposed cells, are
positioned between the proposed cells and both the southern property boundary and Ruin Spring.
Rather than using the numerical model to test alternate potential spacings of wells along the west,
south, and east margins of the proposed cells, the model was designed to test only the proposed
spacing under hypothetical 'worst-case' conditions. The 'worst-case' conditions included
overestimation of average groundwater migration rates south of the tailings management system
("TMS"), which would result in more rapid downgradient plume migration than would be expected
based on calculations provided in HGC (2018). In addition, the 'worst-case' conditions assumed
hypothetical 'point-source leaks' of 0.1 and 1.0 gallons per minute ("gpm") located halfway
between proposed wells MW-44 and MW-45, and between MW-45 and MW-46 [Figure 6.1(1)].
Any such hypothetical 'leaks' would be the most difficult to detect because they would occur at
the downgradient edge of the proposed cells at the maximum distance from the two nearest wells.
Because the nearest wells are positioned along the downgradient edge of the TMS, placing them
primarily cross-gradient of the hypothetical 'leak', cross-gradient spreading of impacts must occur
before such impacts could be detected by these closest wells.
As discussed in HGC (2019) factors that are expected to make any hypothetical 'point-source
leaks' at the downgradient margin of proposed cells 5A and 5B more difficult to detect using
proposed wells include:
Potentially narrow footprint of the groundwater impacts. The narrower the footprint the
more difficult detection will be if the hypothetical 'leak' is located between monitoring
wells. The footprint is expected to decrease as both the vadose thickness and the ratio of
horizontal to vertical permeability decrease. The thinner the vadose zone and the smaller
the ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability, the smaller the spreading in the vadose zone
before groundwater is contacted, and the longer the time likely needed for detection of the
impact by wells along the downgradient margin of the proposed cells.
Potentially large dilution within the perched groundwater. Dilution will increase as both
saturated thickness and rate of groundwater movement increase. As the hydraulic
conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and saturated thickness increase, the greater the volume
of unimpacted perched groundwater that is available to dilute the hypothetical seepage, and
the longer the time likely needed for detection of the impact by wells along the
downgradient margin of the proposed cells.
With regard to potential spreading of the hypothetical seepage footprint within the vadose zone,
all simulations are conservative in assuming a 10: 1 ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability.
This ratio is conservatively small for a highly layered medium such as either the Dakota Sandstone
orJhe Burro Canyon Formation (HGC, 2018). Using the 10:1 ratio will limit lateral spreading of
simulated seepage within the vadose zone and likely cause underestimation of the lateral (including
cross-gradient) impact of hypothetical seepage on simulated groundwater.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 16 of 20
In addition, hydraulic gradients and saturated thicknesses generally increase from west to east
along the downgradient (southern) margin of proposed cells 5A and 5B (HGC, 2018). Therefore,
dilution of potential seepage, and the time likely needed for detection of potential impacts by wells
along the downgradient margin of the proposed cells, is expected to increase from west to east.
Assuming the source term is located either between proposed wells MW-44 and MW-45, or wells
MW-45 and MW-46, is additionally conservative due to the relatively large saturated thicknesses
at these locations. Simulations assuming a source term between MW-45 and MW-46 are the most
conservative because saturated thicknesses and hydraulic gradients within this area are relatively
large and will result in the greatest dilution of any potential seepage.
Previous numerical modeling performed in 2001 (HGC, 2001) indicated that the proposed spacings
are likely to be adequate. However, due to the relative paucity of water level and hydraulic
conductivity data at that time, the 2001 simulations overestimated hydraulic conductivities and
hydraulic gradients. Hydraulic conductivities and hydraulic gradients used in the 2001 simulations
were based on measurements from only nine locations; the nine wells located closest to the TMS
at that time.
Since 2001, the number of wells within and along or near the margins of the existing TMS has
approximately tripled; wells MW-23 through MW-34 have been installed within and along the
boundaries of the TMS; and DR-series piezometers DR-7, DR-11, DR-12 and DR-13 have been
installed immediately downgradient of the existing TMS (Figure 6.1(1)). At these installations
water level data have been obtained from all except MW-33 (which is dry), and hydraulic
conductivity data have been obtained from all but MW-33, MW-34, and DR-12 (which have
insufficient saturated thicknesses).
Furthermore, the 2001 simulations focused on cell 3 rather than proposed cells 5A and 5B which
are the focus of the current simulations. Taking into account data from MW-17, DR-11, DR-12
and DR-13, located beneath or in the immediate vicinity of proposed cells 5A and 5B, average
hydraulic conductivities and hydraulic gradients are lower than for the existing TMS overall or as
estimated in HGC (2001).
In performing the simulations, dispersivities appropriate for the problem scale and known
heterogeneity were assumed; however, for comparison, additional simulations were performed
using dispersivities that were half as large. As discussed in HGC (2019), reducing dispersivities
by half had little impact on the results, indicating that other factors, such as the groundwater
mounds developing beneath the hypothetical 'leaks', had a greater impact on lateral spreading
within perched groundwater than did mechanical dispersion. The groundwater mounds also act to
increase downgradient plume migration rates.
The southwest (SW)-oriented hydraulic gradient imposed in the 2001 simulations directed flow
from cell 3 across the dry area later discovered beneath and SW of cell 4B. A SSW-directed
gradient was used in simulations assuming a hypothetical 'leak' between MW-44 and MW-45.
Consistent with currently measured hydraulic gradient directions, the SSW-directed gradient
results in flow from the downgradient edge of cell 5B that is sub-parallel to the structural high
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 17 of 20
causing the dry areas (Figure 6.1(1)) and indicates that the dry areas are likely to have little impact
on the simulation results.
For comparison, a set of simulations representing the dry areas was performed. As discussed in
HGC (2019), results of simulations representing the dry areas are nearly identical to those without
the dry areas. Therefore, dry areas were not represented except in this specific set of simulations.
As indicated in HGC (2019), using reasonable but conservative assumptions, simulations of
hypothetical 'point-source leaks' ranging in magnitude from 0.1 gpm to 1 gpm at the downgradient
margin of proposed cells SA and 5B indicate that even under simulated 'worst-case' conditions,
potential impacts are predicted to spread sufficiently cross-gradient to allow timely detection using
the proposed well spacing. As indicated above, the proposed well spacing is also acceptable based
on the 2001 simulations which relied on fewer data points but were generally more conservative.
The proposed well spacing is therefore expected to be more than adequate to detect both changes
in concentration and saturated thickness resulting from these hypothetical 'leaks'.
Simulations indicate that any potential impacts to groundwater will be detected by proposed wells
along the southern margin of cells 5A and 5B more than 100 years before they would be detected
at the next closest downgradient well MW-3A. Assuming a hypothetical 1 gpm 'leak', impacts
would be detected along the cell margin in less than 50 years, and assuming a hypothetical 0.1
gpm 'leak', within 100 to 200 years. In addition, because thousands of years would likely be
required for perched groundwater to migrate from proposed cells 5A and 5B to the southern
property boundary or to Ruin Spring (HGC, 2018), the impacts from hypothetical 'leaks' would
likely be detected by the proposed wells thousands of years before they could reach a property
boundary or discharge point.
REFERENCES
HGC, 2001. Assessment of the Effectiveness of Using Existing Monitoring Wells for GWDP
Detection Monitoring at the White Mesa Uranium Mill, Blanding Utah. September 25, 2001.
HGC, 2018. Hydrogeology of the White Mesa Uranium Mill and Recommended Locations of
New Perched Wells to Monitor Proposed Cells 5A and 5B. July 11, 2018.
HGC, 2019. Letter to Ms. Kathy Weinel Re: Numerical Transport Simulations to Support
Proposed Cell SA and 5B Well Spacing. March 7, 2019.
DWMRC Comment
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 6.1(2):
Provide revised figures for the Hydrological Report including the additional piezometers for
Director review and approval.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The basis for this interrogatory is the Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
(DWMRC) review of the Energy Fuels Resources (EFR) July 12, 2018 Request to Amend the White
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 18 of 20
Mesa Uranium Mill (Mill) Radioactive Materials License (License No. UT1900479) and
Groundwater Discharge Permit (Permit No. UGW370004 ). Specifically, this interrogatory is
regarding issues related to the groundwater monitoring network for proposed new tailings
impoundments 5A and 5B.
The EFR Request included a copy of the currently approved Hydro geological Report for the Mill
with inclusions related to the new impoundment construction and groundwater monitoring. The
Hydrological Report was re-dated July 11, 2018. This is included as Appendix B of the EFR
Request. Specifically, the revised Hydro geological Report includes new figures 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
and 38 which are titled as below:
Figure 33 -Proposed Impoundments 5A and 5B (showing kriged Q4 2017 perched water levels
and cross sections in proposed cell areas), White Mesa Site.
Figure 34 -Interpretive East-West Cross Section (WNW-ESE), Proposed Cell 5A/5B Area.
Figure 35 -Interpretive East-West Cross Section (W-E), Proposed Cell 5A/5B Area.
Figure 36 -Proposed Locations of Cells 5A and 5B ( showing kriged Q4 2017 perched water levels
and inferred perched water flow paths downgradient of the tailings management system).
Figure 37 -Proposed Locations of Cells 5A and 5B (showing kriged Q4 2017 perched water levels
and inferred shortest flow path to closest discharge point), White Mesa Site.
Figure 38 -Proposed Locations of New Perched Wells to Monitor Proposed Cells 5A and 5B
(showing kriged Q4 2017 perched water levels), White Mesa Site.
Per review of the Report Proposed Revised Figure 38 (Page 219 of 1327) it was noted that the
proposed monitoring well locations do not include monitoring wells or groundwater head
monitoring at the southeast corner of proposed impoundment 5B. One existing well, MW-17 is
included on the east (up gradient) side of proposed impoundment 5B, however, this one well does
not appear adequate to support the groundwater elevation contour lines in the area proposed 5B.
This issue was discussed during a conference call between DWMRC and EFR on September JO,
2018. It was agreed that two additional wells/piezometers would be installed in this area.
Specifically, one piezometer would be proposed at the southwest corner of proposed impoundment
5B and another would be proposed east of impoundment 5B.
Also per review of the Report Proposed Revised Figure 38 it was noted that a large "dry" area is
plotted at the northwest corner area of proposed impoundment 5A. Per review, the extent of the
dry area is based on limited well data to delineate the area of the dry zone. Monitoring wells have
not been proposed in this area based on the extrapolated extent of the dry zone. In order to verify
that the dry zone is present in the area depicted, water level monitoring needs to be included in
the groundwater monitoring network for this proposed impoundment.
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 19 of 20
A piezometer needs to be placed between existing monitoring well MW-33 and proposed
monitoring well MW-41 to verify that the perched aquifer is dry in the plotted area. It is
recommended that the piezometer be designed and installed to allow groundwater sampling in the
event that groundwater is encountered at that location. Per September JO, 2018 telephone
conference call between DWMRC and EFR, it was agreed that a piezometer needed to be included
in this location.
EFRI Response:
Figure 38, included in Attachment F provides the requested changes. The figure has been updated
to incorporate the data through second quarter 2019.
DWMRC Comment
6.2 Proposed Additional Operational Environmental Monitoring
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 6.2(1):
Evaluate the need for an additional air monitoring station between BHV6 and the new proposed
location of BHV4.
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
The Mill proposes in Appendix G of the application to move BHV4 approximately 1 mile south-
southwest from its current location. The placement of BHV4 is to be along the south-southwesterly
windrose. The problem with this placement is there is no population to the South-southwest of the
Mill and thus the placement and data will be valuable for an environmental assessment it would
not be helpful in a public dose assessment. Therefore, there needs to be another air monitoring
station between the proposed new location of BHV4 and BHV-6 to assess the windrose for the
south-southeast and the public dose that might occur at the community of White Mesa.
EFRI Response:
EFRI has proposed a new monitoring station (BHV-9) to the south-southeast of the Mill. The
location of BHV-9 corresponds to the nearest potential Ute resident at the closest point where the
Ute reservation touches mill property (T38S, R22E, Sec. 15, NW corner). This location
corresponds to the receptor modeled in the MILDOS runs, which is included as Attachment G.
The proposed location of BHV-9 is shown on Figure 1 included in Attachment H.
DWMRC Comment
9. Decommissioning, Reclamation and Long Term Impacts
INTERROGATORY STATEMENT 9.0(1):
Include the approved rock cover design for the cover system as per the stipulation agreement
BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY:
Letter to Ty L. Howard
December 23, 2019
Page 20 of 20
In the proposed changes to the reclamation plan documented in Appendix Hof the Environmental
Report. EFRI references the ET cover design only. The ET cover design is not the approved cover
system for the tailing impoundments.
EFRI Response:
Please see response to Interrogatory Statement 3.1(5).
Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information.
Yours very truly,
Kmrit~
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
Kathy Weinel
Quality Assurance Manager
cc: Mark Chalmers
Dave Frydenlund
Paul Goranson
Logan Shumway
Terry Slade
Garrin Palmer
Scott Bakken
ATTACHMENT A
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
Mill Management Organization Chart
President & CEO
I
Chief Operating CFO, General
Counsel, Corp -, -,
I
Mill Operations
Personnel
I
Radiation Safety
Technician(s)
Officer
I
Mill Manager
MillRSO
I
Environmental
Technician(s)
Secretary
I I I I I I I
Senior Dir. _ _J
Regulatory Affairs
------·----·-----------·---...
I
Safety Coordinator
ATTACHMENT B
Alternative General
The triple liner system on the cell floor is
comprised of, from top to bottom:
• Slimes drain system;
• Primary 60-mil HOPE geomembrane;
• 300-mil geonet primary leak
detection system;
• Secondary 60-mil HOPE
geomembrane; and
• Tertiary 60-mil studded HOPE
geomembrane liner secondary leak
Option A -Triple detection system.
Liner System Flow through defects in the primary 60-mil HOPE
geomembrane will be collected-in the primary
leak detection layer (above the secondary
geomembrane). Flow through defects in the
secondary 60-mil HOPE geomembrane will be
collected in the secondary leak detection layer.
Flow through the tertiary geomembrane is
limited by the volume of liquid in the secondary
leak detection layer and subsequent low
hydraulic head on the tertiary, studded 60-mil
HOPE geomembrane.
The double liner with GCL is comprised of, from
top to bottom:
• Slimes drain system;
• Primary 60-mil HOPE _geomembrane;
• 300-mil geonet primary leak
detection system;
• Secondary 60-mil HOPE
Option B -Double geomembrane; and
Liner System with • Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL).
GCL Flow through defects in the primary 60-mil HOPE
geomembrane will be collected in the primary
leak detection layer (above the secondary
geomembrane). Flow through defects in the
secondary 60-mil HOPE geomembrane will be
minimized by maintaining a low hydraulic head
above the secondary geomembrane and the low
hydraulic conductivity of the GCL.
Attachment B
Liner Alternatives Comparative Matrix
White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB
Blanding, Utah
Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment Compliance with Regulations
The action leakage rate for
both options through the
primary liner is 526 gallons per
day per acre.
Flow into the subgrade is
virtually zero for both options Both options meet the
due to minimal hydraulic head requirements of Utah
on the tertiary geomembrane Administrative Code R317-6
(Option A) and minimal
hydraulic head on the
secondary geomembrane and
very low hydraulic conductivity
of the GCL layer (Option B)
Effectiveness and Permanence
Both options provide long-
term effectiveness and
permanence with HOPE
materials as the primary
protection materials.
Construction materials were
selected for chemical
resistance, including resistance
to acidic and chemical
processing solids and liquids
from both conventional ores
and alternate feed materials,
as well as resistance to
ultraviolet (UV) degradation.
Geosyntec1>
consultants
Implementability Cost
Construction of the triple liner
system requires construction
of three, 40+ acre liner layers
including one studded drain
liner. Welding of studded drain
liner requires smoothing of Approximately 2% lower than
overlaps and placement of Option B
geonet to minimize smooth
membrane to smooth
membrane blockages in the
secondary leak detection layer ..
Construction of the double
liner system with GCL requires
more subgrade preparation
than the triple liner option due
to the smaller allowable
protrusion height. In addition,
to minimize changes in Approximately 2% higher than hydraulic conductivity of the
GCL resulting from potential Option A
hydration with acidic tailings
solution, the GCL is pre-
hydrated with water or
amended with polymer to
maintain a low hydraulic
conductivity in the GCL.
ATTACHMENT C
Prepared for
Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc.
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, UT 84511
CELLS SA & SB DESIGN REPORT
Revision Issue Date
00 July 2018
01 May 2019
Notes
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
Prepared by
c;eosyntec C>
consultants
engineers I scientists I innovators
16644 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92127
Project Number SC0634A
Issue for UDEQ Review
DEQ Interrogatory Response 1 (IR-1)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Objective ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background .................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Report Organization ..................................................................................... 1
2. BACKGROUND AND SITE CONDITIONS ...................................................... 3
2.1 Site Location ................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Climatology ................................................................................................. 3
2.3 Topography .................................................................................................. 3
2.4 Existing Soil Conditions .............................................................................. 4
2.4.1 Surface Conditions ....................................... , .................................. 4
2.4.2 Soil Berms ....................................................................................... 4
2.4.3 Subsurface Conditions .................................................................... 4
2.5 Surface Water .............................................................................................. 5
2.6 Groundwater ................................................................................................. 5
2. 7 Tailings ........................................................................................................ 5
3. DESIGN .......................................................................... _. ..................................... 6
3 .1 Cell Capacity and Geom tJ.·¥ ........................................................................ 6
3.2 Slope Stability .............................................................................................. 7
3.3 Earthwork .................................................................................................... 7
3.3.1 ·E~cavation ....................................................................................... 8
3.3.2 Fill Plaeement. ................................................................................. 8
3.3.3 Subgrade Preparation ...................................................................... 9
3. 3. 4 AneJ:i.or T reneJ1 ................................................................................ 9
3:4 Liner System ................. , .............................................................................. 9
3.4.1 SLimesDl.iain System ..................................................................... 11
3.4.2 Primai;y Liner Systems .................................................................. 13
3.4.3 Primary Leak Detection Systems .................................................. 13
3.4.3.1 Action Leakage Rate .................................................... 14
3.4.3.2 Drain Liner TM and Perforated Pipe ............................. 14
3.4.3.3 Puncture Protection ...................................................... 14
3.4.3.4 Sump ............................................................................ 15
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _01 -REDLINE i July 2018
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.4.4 Secondary Leak Detection System ................................................ 15
3 .4 .4 .1 Action Leakage Rate .................................................... 15
3 .4 .4 .2 Puncture Protection ...................................................... 16
3.4.4.3 Sump ............................................................................ 16
3.5 Splash Pad .................................................................................................. 16
3.6 Emergency Spillway .................................................................................. 19
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................. 21
4 .1 Limitations ................................................................................................. 21
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Geotechnical Investigation Site Plan
Figure 2 Cross Sections
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Construction Dr~wings
AppendiK l '·L 1 Option A Triple Liner System
Sheet l
Sheet 2
Sheet 3A
Sheet 3B
Sheet 4A
Sheet 4.B
Sheet 5
Title Sheet
Site Plan
Cell 5 A Proposed Oracling
Cell 5B Proposed Grading
Pipe Layout Plan and Deta:ils Cell 5A
Pipe Layout Plan and Details Cell 5B
Liner System Details I {Rev-01)
SC0634.Design_Report5A-58.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE ii Rev-OJ May 2019
Appendix A 2
(REV-01)
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
Geo syn.tee 1>
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
Sheet 6
Sheet 7
Sheet 8
Sheet 9
Sheet 10
Liner System Details II
Details and Sections III
Details and Sections IV
Details and Sections--¥
Details and Sections VI
consultants
Option B Double Liner System with Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Sheet 1
Sheet 2
Sheet 3A
Sheet 3B
heet4A
Sheet4B
Sheet 5
Sheet6
Sheet 7
Sheet 8
heet9
Sheet 10
Title Sheet
Site Plan
·Cell SA Proposed Grading
Cell 5B Prop0sed Grading
Pipe Layout Plan and Details -Cell 5A
Pipe Layout Plan and Details -Cell 5B
Liner System Details I
Liner System Details II
Dew.)Js and Sections III
Details and Sections IV
Details and Sections V
Details and Sections VI
Construction Quality Assurance Plan
Project Technical Specifications
Design Calculations
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _01 -REDLINE iii Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec C>
Appendix E
Appendix F
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( continued)
Boring Logs and Geotechnical Laboratory Results
Chemical Resistance Charts ( on CD/electronic PDF only)
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20l90624.REV _Ol -REDLINE iv
consultants
Rev-01 May 2019
..
Geosyntec t>
consultants
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of design analyses performed in support of the Cells 5A
and 58 construction at the White Mesa Mill Facility in Blanding, Utah (site). The San
Diego office of Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) prepared this report for Energy
Fuels Resources (USA), Inc. (EF). This report was prepared by Mr. Jay Griffin and
reviewed by Ms. Rebecca Oliver, both of Geosyntec. Mr. Gregory Corcoran, P.E. of
Geosyntec was in responsible charge and provided senior peer review of the work
presented herein in accordance with the internal peer review policy of the firm.
1.1 Obiective
The objective of this report is to present the components of Cells 5A and 58 and
includi:Hg two alternative l.iner systems: Option A Triple LiAer aRd Of>tion B Double
Liner with Geosyuthetic Clay Liner (GCL). EF 1Nill. dee:i'de which Option to construct
and notify Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (UDWMRC) at
least 30 days prior to starting eoF1Str1:1etion ofthe selected Option liner systen1. This report
demonstrate (Rev-01) that the proposed Cell SA and 58 designs and both liRer system
options (Rev-01) comply with the applicable regulatory standards for the State of Utah,
the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Environmental
Protection Agency (USEP A). In particular, the designs aredesign is (Rev-01) in
accordance with the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R317-6, and the Best Available
Technology requirements mandated by Part I.D. of existing site Ground Water Discharge
Permit No. UGW370004.
This report contains the design and permitting information, for both Options (Rev-01)
including Construction Drawings (Appendix A 1 and A 2 for Options A and B,
respectively [Rev-01)), Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan (Appendix B),
Technical Specifications (Appendix C), Design Calculations (Appendix D), and
supporting boring logs and geotechnical laboratory results (Appendix E).
1.2 Background
Current site operations utilize Cells 1, and 48 for process liquids evaporation and Cells 3
and 4A for disposal of tailings and by-products from the processing operations at the site.
Cells 4A and 48 are adjacent to the proposed SA and 58 cells. Cells 5A and 58 will
initially be used for evaporation of process liquids and as needed thereafter for final
storage of solids contained in the tailings and by-products from processing operations at
the site. Cell SA will be constructed first and Cell 58 will be constructed in the future.
1.3 Report Organization
The remainder of this design report is organized into the following sections:
SC0634.Design _ Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _ O 1 -REDLINE l Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
• Section 2, Background and Site Conditions, presents general information on the
site and background information on the existing conditions at Cells 5A and 5B.
• Section 3, Design, presents the design for Cells 5A and 5B.
• Section 4, Summary and Conclusions, presents the summary, conclusions, and
limitations of this technical design report.
As described previously, the Cell 5A and 5B permit documents include Construction
Drawings (Appendix A), a Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan (Appendix B),
Technical Specifications (Appendix C), engineering design calculations (Appendix D),
and seismic refraction data, trench logs, and geotechnical laboratory data (Appendix E).
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20l90624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 2 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t>
consultants
2. BACKGROUND AND SITE CONDITIONS
2.1 Site Location
The location of the site is shown on Sheet 1 of the Construction Drawings (Appendix A
A. 1 and A 2 [Rev-01 ]). The site is located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, Utah
on Highway 191. Per the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) Coordinate System, the
site is located at 4,159,100 meters Northing and 634,400 meters Easting.
The Mill is located on a parcel of fee land, State of Utah lease property and associated
mill site claims, covering approximately 5,415 acres. The site mill operations are limited
to approximately 50 acres located directly east of Cell 1. The existing tailings disposal
Cells (Cells 1 through 4B) are approximately 454 acres. Cells 5A and 5B are located
south of existing cells 4A and 4B. The site plan is shown on Sheet 2 of the Construction
Drawings (Appendix A A 1 and A 2 [Rev-01).
2.2 Climatology
The climate of southeastern Utah is classified as dry to arid. Although varying somewhat
with elevation and terrain, the climate in the vicinity of the site can be considered as semi-
arid with normal precipitation of about 13 .4 in (WRCC, 2005). Most precipitation is in
the form of rain, with snowfall accounting for about 30 percent of the annual precipitation
total. There are two separate rainfall seasons in the region, the first in late summer and
early autumn (August to October) and the second during the winter months (December
to March).
The average temperature in Blanding ranges from approximately 30 degrees Fahrenheit
(°F) in January to approximately }6°F in July. Average minimum temperatures are
approximately 18°F in January and average maximum temperatures are approximately
91 °Fin July (City-Data.com, 2007).
The mean annual relative humidity is about 44 percent and is normally highest in January
and lowest in July. The average annual Class I pan evaporation rate is 86 inches (WRCC,
2007), with the largest evaporation occurring in July. Values of pan coefficients range
from 60 percent to 81 percent. Tlie annual lake evaporation rate for the site is 4 7 .6 inches
and the net evaporation rate is 34.2 inches per year.
2.3 Topography
The existing topography within the Cells 5A and 5B area consists of a gently sloping
grade (approximately 2 percent) from the northwestern portion of Cell 5A to the
southwestern portion of Cell 5B and from the northeastern portion of Cell 5B to the
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 3 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t>
consultants
southwestern portion of Cell 5B. Existing Cell 4 A and 4 B slopes within the proposed Cell
5A and 5B area are inclined at a slope of approximately 3 horizontal: 1 vertical (3H:1V).
2.4 Existing Soil Conditions
2.4.1 Surface Conditions
Currently, the proposed 5A and 5B Cells are undeveloped and covered by native low
grass and shrub vegetation. The site is bordered to the north by the existing Cells 4A and
4B and to the south, east, and west by undeveloped lands.
The existing ground surface within the area of the proposed Cell 5A slopes gently from
northwest to south-southeast from respective elevations of approximately 5600 feet to
5554 feet, above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The existing ground surface within the
proposed Cell 5B area gently slopes from northeast to southwest from respective
elevation of approximately 5590 feet to 5550 feet above MSL.
2.4.2 Soil Berms
Soil berms exist on the northern perimeters of the proposed Cells 5A and 5B. These berms
were constructed previously of engineered fill with approximately 3H: 1 V side slopes.
2.4.3 Subsurface Conditions
Geosyntec performed a geotechnical investigation within the proposed limits of Cells 5A
' and 5B (Figure 1 ). The geotechnical investigation consisted of a site reconnaissance,
seismic refraction surveys lines, test pit excavatidn and observation, soil sampling, and
geotechnical laboratory analysis of soil samples collected.
Soils encountered during soil sampling and test pit excavation and observation were
consistent with formations in Southern Utah. Within the limits of the explorations, the
site is underlain by surficial windblown loess and eolian deposits and variably weathered
deposits of the Dakota Sandstone.
Loess and eolian deposits were encountered at the ground surface across the site
extending to approximate depths of 1 to 7 feet. The deposit is generally thickest along the
western portion of the site and thins to the east and southeast, with locally thicker deposits
in between. The loess and eolian deposits are generally homogeneous across the site
consisting of firm to stiff, yellowish red sandy clay (Unified Soil Classification System
Classification CL). Test pit logs and geotechnical laboratory results are presented in
Appendix E.
SC0634.Design_Report5A-58.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 4 Rev-01 May2019
Geo syn.tee 1>
consultants
The Dakota Sandstone underlies the surficial deposits at depth across the entire site area.
The deposit generally exhibits a weathering rind approximately O to 7.5 feet thick
consisting of dense to very dense, pale yellow to pink, silty fine sandstone with irregular
zones of caliche accumulation. The unweathered Dakota Sandstone is encountered at
approximately 1 to 11 feet below the ground surface. The deposit generally consists of
very dense, very pale brown to white, fine grained sandstone with little silt.
2.5 Surface Water
Surface water at the facility is diverted around the Cells, including the proposed Cells SA
and SB. Surface water run-on into Cells SA and SB is primarily limited to direct
precipitation.
The site has implemented a Storm Water Best Management' Practices Plan in accordance
with the facility permit. Site construction activities will be performed in accordance with
the site Storm Water Best Management Practices Plan.
2.6 Groundwater
Groundwater is located at a depth of approximate! 50. to 80 feet at the site. Gr0updwater
monitoring wells DR-12 andDR-13 will be abandoned dttring e<imstruction ofthis·project.
Groundwater monitoring wells MW-l4, MW-15, MW-17, MW-33, MW-34, MW-37,
and DR-11 will be protected in place and raised as necessary.
2.7 Tailings
Cells SA and SB will aeoept process liquids tailing§ and by-products associated with
onsite processing operations for both conventional 0res and alternate feed materials. The
liquids are typically highly acidic with a pH generally between 1 and 2. Tailings are
generally compdse<!l of ore that is .ground m a maximum grain size of approximately 28
Mesh (US #30 Sieve) N.023 in ·hes (0.6 millimeters)), resulting in a fine sand and silt
material.
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20l90624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 5 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
3. DESIGN
The liner system is designed to provide a Cell for disposal of by-products from the onsite
processing operations while protecting the groundwater beneath the site. The liner system
is designed to meet the Best Available Technology requirements of the UAC R317-6,
which require that the facility be designed to achieve the maximum reduction of a
pollutant achievable by available processes and methods taking into account energy,
public health, environmental and economic impacts, and other costs. The--lwe (Rev-01)
liner systems have been proposed for the cells is comprised of (Rev-01), from top to
bottom:
• Slimes drain system;
• Primary geomembrane liner;
• Leak detection system:
• Secondary geomembra:ne liner; and
• Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL). (Rev-01)
Option/\ Triple Liner
• Slimes drain syste)ll;
• Primary geomembrane liner;
• Leak detection s1_stem·
• :Becend.'aty geomembrane liner·
• Leak detection system; fHld
• Tertiary geomembra,pe. liner.
(Rev-01)
Option B Double Liner v,itl~
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Slimes cirain system;
Primary geomernbrane liner;
Leak detection system;
• Secondary geomembrane liner
aoo
• Geosynthetie Clay Liner (GCL).
These components and related design considerations are discussed below.
3.1 Cell Capacity and Gtomet1y
Cell SA has been designed to accommodate storage ofup to 1,330 acre-feet (2.15 million
cubic yards) of tailings with solids storage to within 1.5-feet of the top of the
geomembrane liner, and Cell 5B has been designed to accommodate storage of up to
1,360 acre-feet (2.20 million cubic yards) of tailings with solids storage to within 1.5-feet
of the top of the geomembrane liner. The lowest elevation in Cell SA is the sump located
SC0634.Design_Report5A-58.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 6 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t.>
consultants
in the southeast corner at an elevation of approximately 5,541 feet above MSL, and the
lowest elevation in Cell 58 is the sump located in the southwest corner at an elevation of
approximately 5,539 feet above MSL.
Interior side slopes of Cell 5A and 58 will be constructed with 2H: 1 V inclinations with
the exception of the northwest and southeast corners of Cell 5A and the northeast and
southwest corners of Cell 58, which will be constructed with 3 H: 1 V slope inclinations.
This will require re-grading of the southern berms of Cells 4A and 48, which currently
have exterior side slopes of3H:1V. The eastern berm ofCell 5A will be constructed with
a 2H:1 V interior slope and 3H:1 V exterior slope. During construction of Cell 58, the
slope will be reduced to 2H:1 V. The proposed southern berms of Cell 5A and 58 will
have 2H:1V interior slopes and 3H:1V exterior slopes. The eastern berm ofCell 58 will
be constructed with 2H: 1 V interior slopes and 5H: 1 V exterior slopes. An approximately
25-foot wide berm, containing an unpaved access road, is proposed to surround Cells 5A
and 58. Cell layout is shown on Construction Drawing (Appendix A).
3.2 Slope Stability
Static and pseudostatic slope stability analysis was conducted for the final earthen berms
and interim waste/tailings slopes associated with the operation of Cells 5A and 58. Final
slope stability and operational conditions are required to maintain a minimum factor of
safety of approximately 1.5 for final berm slope conditions and 1.3 for interim slope
conditions based on the proposed design of the cell and its liner system.
/
Three cross-sections from Cells 5A and 58 were analyzed which represent worst-case
conditions in the cells. Each cross-section was' modeled for four different loading
conditions. These four conditions were static analysis, pseudo-static analysis for seismic
loading conditions, interim construction loading, and evaluation of the yield acceleration.
Numerous potential failure surfaces were analyzed for each model to evaluate various
slip surface geometries and to identify the critical slip surface for each cross-section and
condition.
Slope stability analysis of all three cross-sections for the four different loading conditions
resulted in factors of safety above 1.5 for final conditions and above 1.3 for interim
conditions. A detailed description of the slope stability calculations is presented in
Appendix D.
3.3 Earthwork
Earthwork will consist of excavation, blasting, ripping, trenching, hauling, placing,
moisture conditioning, backfilling, compacting, and grading. The requirements for
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _OI -REDLINE 7 Rev-0 I May 2019
Geosyntec C>
consultants
earthwork for Cells 5A and 5B construction is provided in Appendix C, Section 02200 of
the Technical Specifications.
3.3.1 Excavation
Prior to excavating soils and rock for Cells 5A and 5B, vegetation will be cleared and
grubbed and surficial unsuitable materials will be removed. Excavation will proceed with
the removal of topsoil and then in-situ soils for placement as fill for the construction of
Cells 5A and 5B south berms. Excess soils will be stockpiled to the west of Cell SA or to
the east of Cell 5B in designated stockpile areas (Appendix A).
Rock will be ripped, blasted, or mechanically removed and stockpiled west of Cell SA or
east of Cell 5B, in a separate stockpile from the excess soil stockpile. Rock will be
excavated a minimum of 6-inches below final grade and fill will be placed, moisture
conditioned, compacted, and graded to provide a surface on which the geosynthetic liner
system components will be installed.
Leak detection system and anchor trenches will be excavated as shown on the
Construction Drawings (Appendix A).
3.3.2 Fill Placement
Along the southern perimeter of the proposed Cells 5A and 5B, berms will be constructed
of fill with 2H: 1 V inside slopes and 3H: 1 V outer slopes. During construction of Cell 5A,
a berm with 2H:1V inside slopes and interim, 3H:_1V outer slopes will be constructed
between Cell SA and future Cell 58. During constrtiction of Cell 58, the interior slope of
the berm between Cell 5 A and Cell 5B will be reduced from 3 H: 1 V to 2H: 1 V. Along the
eastern perimeter of Cell SA, a berm with 2H:1V inside slopes and 5H:1V outside slopes
will be constructed. Berms will be constructed with a top width of 25-feet.
Settlement analyses have been performed to evaluate the potential settlement of the berm
and potential associated strain that could develop in the liner system components
(Appendix D). The results of the conservative analyses indicate a maximum strain in the
liner due to potential differential settlement of 0.002 percent, which is much less than the
liner components can tolerate and is therefore acceptable.
Construction materials used for fill will consist of onsite soils placed in lifts resulting in
a compacted thickness no greater than 8-inches and compacted to 90 percent of maximum
dry density per American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard D1557:_
12el (Rev-01) (Modified Proctor) at a moisture content of ±3 percent of optimum. Fill
soil used in construction of the berm will consist of onsite soils with maximum particle
size of 6-inches.
SC0634.Design_ReportSA-SB.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 8 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t>
consultants
3.3.3 Subgrade Preparation
Subgrade preparation includes placement, moisture conditioning, compaction, and
grading of subgrade soil. The subgrade will consist of a minimum of 6-inches of soil
material with a maximum particle size of 3-inches compacted above the rock. Subgrade
fill will be placed in loose lifts of no more than 8-inches and compacted to 90 percent of
the maximum density at a moisture content of ±3 percent of optimum moisture content,
as determined by ASTM D1557-12el (Rev-01). The surface of the subgrade will have
protrusions no greater than 0-;/-0.5-inches (Rev-01). Section 02220 of the Technical
Specifications, in Appendix C, provides the requirements for subgrade for Cells SA and
SB construction.
3.3.4 Anchor Trench
The liner system will be anchored at the top of the slope with an anchor trench. The
anchor trench was sized to resist anticipated maximum wind uplift forces, see Anchor
Trench Capacity Calculations provided in Appendix D. The anchor trench will be a
minimum of 1.5 feet deep and 2 feet wide and filled with compacted soil, as shown on
the Construction Drawings (Appendix A). During construction, the contractor will be
allowed to construct deeper anchor trenches to allow partial backfilling between
subsequent liner component installation to facilitate temporary anchoring of each
geosynthetic layer as it is installed. Anchor trench backfill will be placed in lifts of no
more than 12-inches and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density at a moisture
content of ±3 percent of optimum moisture content, as/determined by ASTM D 15 57-12e 1
(Rev-01).
3.4 Liner System
Two Liner systems are proposed foF ~Us 5A and SB: Option A Triple Liner and Option
B Doable Liner with GCL. eJption A includes both a pr.imary and secondary leak
detection system while Option B include5 a primary leak detection system •. (Rev-01) The
liner system for the base of the cells will consist of (from top to bottom):
• Sli mes Drain System:
• 60-mil smootbJtigh density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane (Primary
Liner);
• 3 00-mi I geonet;
• Composite secondary liner:
o 60-mil smooth HDPE geomembrane (Secondary iner);
o GCL; and
• Prepared Subgrade. (Rev-01)
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 9 Rev-OJ May 2019
• ~;limes Drain System;
-------60 mil smooth high density
polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembrane (Pri-mary Liner);
• 300 mil gem"let·
• 60 mil smooth HDPE
geomembrane (Secondary
Liner);
• 60 mil HDPE Drain Liner™
geomembrane (Tertiary
~-1-t--and
• PFepared Subgrade.
(Rev-01)
GeosyntecD
consultants
Optien B Deuhle Liner with CCL
• Slimes Drain System;
• 60 mil smooth high density
polyethylene (HDPE)
geornembrane (PFimary Liner)·
• 300 mil geonet·
• 60 mil smooth HDPE
geomembrane
(Secondary Liner);
• GCL; and
• Prepared Subgrade.
(Composite
~eeo0dary LiRer)
The liner system for the side slopes of the cells will consist of (from top to bottom):
• 60-mil smooth HDPE geomembrane (Primary Liner);
• Composite secondary liner:
o 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner TM geomembrane (Secondary Liner);
o GCL; and
• Prepared Subgrade (Rev-01)
O(ltien A Triple Liner
• 6~ mil s_meota HQp:g
geomembra:ne (P.cin1ary.
Liner);
• 6Q mil HQPB I)raiA biaerIM
geomembrane (Secopdary
Liner);
(Rev-01}
Option B DeH:Ble LieeF with
GQ,
• 60 mil smooth HDPE
~omembrane (Primary
Liner);
• 6Q mil HDPE Drain } binerIM geomembnme
(Secondary Liner);
• GCL; and
(Composite
~eeo0dary bi0er)
+ The 60 mil I--IDPE Drain LinerJM geomembrane consists of a geomembrane 'Nith
contim.:iously molded 130 mil HDPE studs (in addition to the 60 mil geomembrane
tl:uekness) on one side to create an integrated transmissive Jayer bet'.veen the £>rain
Liner™ and overlying geome1nbrane. (Rev-01)
SC0634.Design_Report5A-58,d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 10 Rev-0 I May 2019
Geosyntec t>
consultants
• 60 mil HDPB Drain Liner™ • :Prepared Subgrade
geomen1brane (Tertiary
Liner); and
• Prepared Subgrade
(Rev-01)
Construction materials were selected for chemical resistance, including resistance to
acidic and chemical processing solids and liquids from both conventional ores and
alternate feed materials, as well as resistance to ultraviolet (UV) degradation. HDPE
geomembrane and geonet was selected due to its high resistance to chemical and UV
degradation and ability to retain durability in an acidic environment. The chemical
resistance lists for the most common HDP E geomembrane manufacturers, AGRU and
GSE (now o1maxGSE) are included in Appendix F (electronic only).
HDPE liners may undergo polymeric bond breakage (scission) when exposed to pure
volatile organic solvent compounds, including chlorinated aliphatic solvent such a
chloroform. The Cell 5A and 5B liners may be exposed to minute concentrations of
chloroform from groundwater originating from the Mill's gi:oundwater capture system.
but the liner systems will not be exposed to full strength chloroform. Anticipated
concentrations of chloroform range fro1n 2 to 130 parts per billion (ppb) {EFRL 2018).
Multiple studies have been performed on HDPE liner in contact with common leachates
with chloroform and other volatiles organic solvent concentrations ranging from 15 to
100.000 ppb, which indicated minimal to no degradation of material properties (Haxo,
1991: Eithe and Hoerner, 1997; Maisonneuve,,et.al, J.997).
The chemical resistance lists fo r the most common I-TDPe geomembrane manufacturers,
AGR U and GSE (now SolmaxGSEJ are included in.Appendix F (eJect:ronic only). IBfil'..:
fill
Stability analyses were conducted to evaluate the various slip surface geometries and to
identify the critical slip surfaces for three cross-sections with various conditions. The
analysis determined the minimum factor of safety of 1.3 for interim conditions and 1.5
for final conditions will be met during and after filling operations. The complete
calculation is located in Appendix D.
3.4.1 Slimes Drain System
A slimes drain system will be placed on top of the primary geomembrane liner in the
bottom of the cell to facilitate dewatering of the tailings prior to final reelamation of the
eell-(Rev-01). The slimes drain system will consist of perforated 4-inch diameter schedule
40 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, concrete sand filled sand bags, drainage aggregate,
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _OI -REDLINE 11 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t>
consultants
cushion geotextile, filter geotextile, and strip composite that will provide a means to drain
the tailings disposed within Cells 5A and 5B. The slimes drain system is shown on the
Construction Drawings (Appendix A).
The slimes drain system is designed to remove the liquids within Cells 5A and 5B in a
reasonable time. Based on the calculations presented in Appendix D, the slimes drain is
expected to drain the tailings in approximately i ~ years (Rev-01). A sump pump
capable of pumping 147 gallons per minute (gpm) will be required upon start-up of the
slimes drain system and for the followi ng few days (Rev-01). The pumping rate is
anticipated to decrease with time as the head within Cells 5A and 5B decreases.
The perforated PVC pipe is designed to resist crushing and wall buckling due to the
anticipated loading associated with the maximum height of overlying tailings. The design
analyses for the pipe are presented in Appendix D, while Appendix C, Section 02616
provides material specifications for the pipe and strip composite and Section 02225
provides material specifications for the drainage aggregate. The strip composite will be
comprised of a 1-inch thick by 12-inch wide high density polyethylene, or equivalent acid
resistant material, wrapped in a nonwoven polypropylene geotextile. The drainage
aggregate will consist of a crushed rock that has a carbonate content loss of no more than
10 percent by weight.
A continuous row of sand bags filled witlisandmee_ting the requirements of the Teclmical
Specifications a concrete sand meeting Utah Department of Tnmsportation (UDOT)
standard speeificatiofl5 for Poitland Cement Concrete (R ev-01) will overlie the strip
composite laterals to act as an additional filter layer above the geotextile component of
the strip composite. The proposed UDOT concrete (Rev-01) sand will be placed in sand
bags consisting of woven geotextile capable of allowing liquids to pass. When placed
overlying the strip composite, the sand bags will have an approximate length of 18 inches,
width of 12 inches, and a height of 3 inches. This results in a sand bag that is
approximately 30 to 35 pounds and will provide sufficient coverage over the width and
ends of the strip composite to act as an additional filter layer. The UDOT concrete (Rev-
01) sand will consist of sand that has a carbonate content loss of no more than 10 percent
by weight and a minimum permeability of lx10-4 centimeters per second (cm/s) (Rev-
01). Alternatively, a woven geotextile may be placed above the strip composite with
concrete sand installed above. Following placement of a minimum of 3 inches of sand
above the strip composite, the geotextile will be folded over and seamed creating a
continuous sand layer above the strip composite.
The cushion geotextile that is to be installed beneath the drainage aggregate surrounding
the PVC pipe is designed to protect the underlying primary high density polyethylene
(HDPE) geomembrane from puncture due to the drainage aggregate and the anticipated
SC0634.Design_Report5A-58.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 12 Rev-01 May 2019
Geo syn.tee C>
consultants
loading associated with the maximum height of overlying tailings and final cover (9-feet
of soil). The design analyses for the cushion geotextile are presented in Appendix D,
while Appendix C, Section 02771 provides material specifications. Overlying the
drainage aggregate and cushion geotextile will be a woven geotextile, as shown on the
Construction Drawings (Appendix A), that will serve to separate the tailings and the
drainage aggregate.
The Slimes Drain sump will include a side slope riser pipe to allow installation of a
submersible pump for manual collection of liquids in the sump. The sump and riser pipes
are shown on the Construction Drawings (Appendix A).
3.4.2 Primary Liner Systems
The primary liner will consist of smooth 60-mil HDPE geomembrane. The geomembrane
will have a white surface that will limit geomembrane movement and the creation of
wrinkles due to temperature variations. The limit of the liner systems (both primary and
secondary) and details are shown on the Construction Drawings (Appendix A).
Tension due to wind up lift was analyzed for the 60-mil HDPE geomembrane. Based on
the analysis, the geomembrane anchor trench has been sized to accommodate the loading
associated with a wind speed of 25 miles per hour and a slope length of approximately
103 feet. The design analyses for the HDPE liner uplift are presented in Appendix D.
The HDPE geomembrane will be constructed in accordance with the current standard of
practice for geomembrane liner installation, ~ outlined in the site Technical
Specifications (Appendix C, Section 02770) and the site CQA Plan (Appendix B). Seams
will be welded to provide a continuous geomembrane liner. Testing during construction
will include both non-destructive and destructive testing, as outlined in the Technical
Specifications and CQA Plan. Upon completion of construction, the geomembrane
manufacturer will provide a 20-year warranty for the geomembrane.
3.4.3 Primary Leak Detection System (Option A aeE1 013ti0e Q)System (Rev-01)
The primary leak detection system (LDS) will underlie the primary liner and is designed
to collect potential leakage through the liner and convey the liquid to the sump for manual
detection through monitoring .of sump levels . The bottom LDS consists of a 300-mil thick
geonet above a 60-mil HDPE geomembrane and a network of gravel trenches throughout
the bottom of Cells 5A and 5B. The trenches will contain a 4-inch diameter perforated
schedule 40 PVC pipe, drainage aggregate, and a cushion geotextile, which will drain to
sumps located in the southeast corner of Cell 5A and the southwest corner of Cell 5B.
The trenches will aid in rapidly conveying leakage to the LDS sump. On the side slopes,
SC0634.Design _ Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _ 01 -REDLINE 13 Rev-OJ May 2019
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
the primary leak detection system consists of a 130-mil Drain Liner™ geomembrane.
The LDS is shown on the Construction Drawings (Appendix A).
3.4.3.1 Action Leakage Rate
The Action Leakage Rate (ALR) was calculated for the LDS in accordance with Part
254.302 of the USEPA Code of Federal Regulations. The ALR was evaluated for various
scenarios within Cells 5A and 58. The most conservative approaches were selected and
evaluated in the calculation packages included in Appendix D. The ALR was calculated
to be 526 gallons per day per acre in the primary LDS. The flow in the primary LDS side
slope Drain Liner™ was evaluated against the flow through a defect in the primary
geomembrane. The flow in the Drain Liner™ was found to be 4.08x10-6 m3/sec, or 1.6
times greater than the flow through a defect; therefore, the Drain Liner™ will be adequate
for leak detection on the side slopes.
The total travel time for liquids entering the geonet LDS layer to travel from the leak to
the LDS piping system was estimated to be approximately one day for the primary LDS.
Assuming a worst case scenario under which all the primary geomembrane defects are
located at the high end of the leakage collection layer slope, the liquid head on the
secondary liner does not exceed 13.4 mils (0.0134 in). This value is well below the
required maximum limit of 12 inches and the collection layer thickness of 300 mils. The
geonet and Drain Liner™ provide sufficient flow rates to accommodate the ALR on the
cell bottoms and side slopes, respectively. The complete ALR calculation is located in
Appendix D and Sections 02770 and 02773 o.£ Appendix C provides material
specifications for the geonet.
3.4.3.2 Perforated Pipe
The perforated PVC pipe is designed to resist crushing and wall buckling due to the
anticipated loading associated with the maximum height of overlying tailings.
Pipe strength analysis indicated the 4-inch PVC pipe with a maximum allowable
deflection of 7.5 percent will have the ability to resist the anticipated maximum load
associated with a tailing deposit height of 43 feet and additional cover soil height of 9
feet. The design analysis for the pipe is presented in Appendix D, while Appendix C,
Section 02616 provides material specifications for the pipe and Section 02225 provides
material specifications for the drainage aggregate.
3.4.3.3 Puncture Protection
The cushion geotextile is designed to protect the underlying secondary HDPE and
overlying primary HDPE geomembrane from puncture due to the drainage aggregate and
the anticipated loading associated with the maximum height of overlying tailings.
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20!90624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 14 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Puncture analysis indicated a 16 ounce per square yard ( oz./yd2) cushion geotextile and
1-inch maximum particle size would provide puncture protection for the 60-mil HDPE
smooth geomembrane. The design analyses for the cushion geotextile are presented in
Appendix D, while Appendix C, Section 02771 provides material specifications.
3.4.3.4 Sump
The LDS sump will include a side slope riser pipe and submersible pump to allow for
manual collection of liquids in the LDS sump. The LDS sump and riser pipes are shown
on the Construction Drawings (Appendix A).
3.4.4 Seeeudery Leek Deteetiee System (Optiee A Oely)
The primary plH'pose of the secondary liner is to provide a flow barrier so that potential
leakage tR:1.·ough the primary liner will eollect on top tif the secondary liner then flow
through tl1e LDS to. the LDS sump for manual collection. The secondary liaer also
provides a:11 added hydraulic barrier against leakage to the subsurface soils and
groundwater. The secondary liner consists of a 60 mil HDPE Drain Linerl1M for both the
base liner the side slopes.
The secondary LDS will underlie the secondary geemembrane and primary LDS afld is
designed to collect potential leakage thro11.gb the secendai-;• liner and convey the liquid to
the. sump for manual deteetioa thi·o1:1gh m'onitering of sump levels. On the side slopes and
bottom of the eells the secondary LDS consists ofa 130 mil Drain Liner"CM geomembrane.
On the bottom of tl1e ce:l]s a neuyork of gravel trenches. Similar to the primary LDS
the trenches •.vill eontaia a 4 ineh diameter perforated schedule 40 PVC pipe. drainage
aggregate, and a cushion gMtex.tile· which ·.vill $ain to sw11ps located in the southeast
corner of Cell 5A qod the southwest corner of Cell 5B. The trenches ·.vill aid in rapidly
conveyi:B.g leakage te the LDS sump. The LDS is shown on the Construction Dravfings
EA d" A lj , .ppen 1x, ...
3.4. 4.1 Aetilm Leakage Rate
The Action Leak&ge Rttte (ALRJ was ealculated for the LDS in aeeordanee with Part
254.302 of the USEPA Code ofFe,dernl Regulations. The ALR was e¥aluated for •tarious
scenarios within Cells 5~ and $B. The most conservative approa_ches were selected and
evaluated in the calculation packages included in Appendix D. The .t .. LR was calculated
to be 15 gallons per day per acre and the total travel time for liquids entering the Drain
LinerIM LDS layer to travel from the Jeak to the LDS piping system was estimated to be
approximately 5.1 hours. Assl-H1'ling a worst case scenario under which all the primary
geomembrane defects are located at the high end of the leakage collection layer slope the
Liq1:1id head OHthe seeoRdary liner does not exceed 0.1 mils (0.0001 inehes) well belmv
SC0634.Design _ Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _ 01 -REDLINE 15 Rev-01 May 2019
Geo syn.tee 1>
consultants
the requirnd maximum Limit of 12 i:nches (1 foot) and tbe collection layer thickness of
130 mil. The Drain Liner™ provides sufficient flow rate te accommodate the ALR.
The complete A.LR calculation is located in Appendix D and Section 02770 of AppendiJc
C provides material specifications for the Drain Liner™.
3. 4. 4.2 Punetwe Protection
The tertiary geomembrane resistance to puncture was evaluated for direct contact
between the subgrade and tertiary geomembrane. Puncture analysis indicated a max-imum
subgrade protrusion height of 0.7 inch would not ptmcture the Drain Liner.IM
geomembrane. The design analysis is presented in Appendix D.
3. 4.4.3 Sump
The secondru:y LDS sump will iflclude a side slope dser pipe and submersible pump to
allow for manuaJ collection of liquids in the secondary LDS sump. The secoadary LDS
sump and riser pipes are shovm ea the ConstJ:uction Drawings (Appendix A 1).
(Rev-01)
3.4.5 Secondary Composite Liner System (Opti0n B Only) (Rev-01)
The primary purpose of the secondary liner is to provide a flow barrier so that potential
leakage through the primary liner will collect on top of the secondary liner then flow
through the LDS to the LDS sump for manual collection. The secondary liner also
provides an added hydraulic barrier against leakage to the subsurface soils and
groundwater. The secondary liner consists of a composite liner that includes a 60-mil
HDPE geomembrane overlying a GCL.
3.4.5.1 Secondary Geomembrane Liner
The geomembrane component of the secondary liner system will consist of a smooth 60-
mil HDPE geomembrane for the base liner and 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner™ for the side
slope liner and will meet the same criteria as the primary liner geomembrane (Section
3.4.2). The limit of the liner system (both primary and secondary) and details are shown
on the Construction Drawings (A!ppendix A A+[Rev-01 ]).
3.4.5.2 Secondary GCL Liner
The GCL component of the secondary liner system consists of bentonite sandwiched
between two geotextile layers that are subsequently needle-punched together to form a
single composite hydraulic barrier material. The GCL is approximately 0.2-inches thick
with a hydraulic conductivity on the order of 1x10-9 cm per second ( cm/s) (Daniel and
Scranton, 1996). The GCL will be hydrated to account for the high acidity of the tailings
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _01 -REDLINE 16 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t>
consultants
or a polymer enhanced bentonite can be used, if the polymer enhanced bentonite can be
demonstrated to perform equally compared to 50% hydrated standard bentonite when
utilizing a permeant that is chemically (pH and ions. but not radiologically) similar to the
solution contained within the tailings impoundments (Rev-01).
Since 1986, GCLs have been increasingly used as an alternative to compacted clay liners
(CCLs) on containment projects due to their low cost, ease of construction/placement,
and resistance to freeze-thaw and wet-dry cycles. In general, the USEPA and the
containment industry accept that GCLs are hydraulically equivalent to a minimum of 2
feet of compacted clay liner consisting of 1x10-7 cm/s soil materials.
For the Cell 4A design, and in accordance with Permit no. UGW370004, Geosyntec
demonstrated that a secondary composite liner system consisting of a 60-mil HDPE
geomembrane overlying a GCL has equivalent or better fluid migration characteristics
when compared with a secondary composite liner system consisting of a 60-mil HDPE
geomembrane overlying a CCL having a saturated hydraulic conductivity less than 1 x 1 o-
7 cm/s (Geosyntec, 2006). This analysis accounted for the loading conditions and
anticipated liquid head on the secondary liner system, the amount of flow through the
secondary liner system with CCL was evaluated to be 8.51 times greater than flow
through the secondary liner system with GCL for a liquid head of 0.16 inches, which is
more than the calculated Cell SA and 5B liquid head (0.0134 inches). Therefore, in terms
of limiting fluid flow through the composite secondary liner system, the secondary liner
system containing a GCL performs better than the secondary liner system containing a
CCL.
The following site specific conditions must be considered prior to use of a GCL in place
of CCL (Koerner and Daniel, 1993):
• Puncture Resistance: While CCLs naturally provide greater puncture resistance
than GCLs due to their inherent thickness, proper subgrade preparation and
design of the geotextile components of the GCL can result in protection from
puncture. The geotextile components of the GCL for Cell 4B are designed to
protect the overlying secondary HDPE geomembrane from puncture due to
protrusions from the subgrade and the anticipated loading associated with the
maximum height of overlying tailings. The puncture protection analysis of the
GCL indicated that a 3 oz/yd2 geotextile and 6 oz/yd2 geotextile above and
below (respectively) the GCL and a maximum subgrade protrusion height of 1h-
inch will provide puncture protection for the secondary HDPE geomembrane.
The design analyses considers a 60-mil geomembrane placed directly on the
subgrade which is more conservative than the GCL placed directly on the
subgrade and beneath the 60-mil geomembrane. The puncture calculations for
SC0634.Design _ Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _ O I -REDLINE 17 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec D
consultants
the geomembrane on subgrade are presented in Appendix D, while Appendix C,
Section 02772 provides material specifications.
• Hydraulic Conductivity: Due to the acidic nature of the fluid to be stored in the
cell, Geosyntec conducted hydraulic conductivity testing on hydrated specimens
of GCL for the Cell 4A project (Geosyntec 2007). Based on the results, the
GCL will be hydrated to a moisture content of 50% during construction.
Optionally. a GCL containing polymer enhanced bentonite may be used if the
polymer enhanced bentonite can be demonstrated to perform equally compared
to 50% hydrated tandard bentonite when utilizing a penneant that is chemically
(pH and ions, but not radiologically) similar to the solution contained within the
tailings impoundments. (Rev-01)
• Chemical Adsorption Capacity: Due to the thickness of a CCL, the chemical
adsorption capacity of a CCL is greater than that of a GCL. However,
adsorption capacity is only relevant in the short term and not considered a
parameter for steady-state analyses.
• Stability: The internal strength of a GCL can be significantly lower than that of
a CCL, especially at high confinement stresses. This reduced strength can have
significant effects on stability, especially at disposal facilities with high waste
slopes and the potential for seismic activity. Strength of the GCL and its effects
on stability are not a concern at Cells 5A and 5B due to the low confining
stresses expected and geometry of the cell. Waste deposits will not be placed
above the elevation of the perimeter road. Since no above grade slopes will be . /
present, there are no long term destabilizing forces on the liner system.
• Construction Issues: For the Cells 5A and 5B liner system, GCLs may be
considered superior to the CCLs with respect to construction issues.
Construction of GCLs is typically much quicker and is more easily placed than
a CCL, which requires moisture conditioning and compaction for placement.
Further, CQA testing for a GCL is much simpler and less affected by
interpretation of field staff than that for a CCL, which requires careful control
of material type, moisture conditions, clod size, maximum particle size, lift
thickness, etc.
• Physical/Mechanical Issues: Physical and mechanical issues include items such
as the effect of freeze/thaw and wetting/drying cycles. CCLs may undergo
significant increases in hydraulic conductivity as a result of freeze/thaw.
Existing laboratory data suggests that GCLs do not undergo increases in
hydraulic conductivity as a result of freeze/thaw. CCLs are also known to fo1m
desiccation cracks upon drying which can result in significant increases in
hydraulic conductivity. This increase drastically jeopardizes the effectiveness
SC0634.Design _ Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _ O I -REDLINE 18 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntec t.>
consultants
of the CCL as a barrier layer. Available laboratory data on GCLs indicates that
upon re-hydration after desiccation, GCLs swell and the cracks developed
during drying cycles are 'self-healed'. Due to the arid environment at the site,
GCL performance in the Cells 5A and 5B liner system with respect to physical
and mechanical issues is expected to be superior to that of a CCL.
Based on review of the above site-specific considerations, a GCL is considered superior
to a CCL for use in the secondary composite liner system.
3.5 Splash Pad
Approximately eighteen splash pads will be constructed in Cells 5A and 5B, nine splash
pads in each, to allow filling of the cells without damaging the liner system. The splash
pads consist of an additional textured geomembrane placed along the side slope of the
Cell extending a minimum of 5 feet from the toe of the slope. The geomembrane will
protect the underlying liner system from contact with the inlet pipes. A cross section of a
typical splash pad is shown on the Construction Drawings (Appendix A). The locations
of the splash pads will be finalized in the field during construction, based on site
operational needs.
3.6 Emergency Spillway
Emergency spillways will be constructed between Cells 4B and 5A and Cells 5A and 5B.
The spillway locations and details are shown on the Construction Drawings (Appendix
A).
The spillway between Cells 4B and 5A will be located on the berm separating the two
cells in the southeastern portion of Cell 4B and the northeastern portion of Cell 5A and
will be constructed during the Cell 5A construction. The spillway will be approximately
5.5 feet deep, sloped at 2% toward Cell SA, and include lOH:1 V approach pads that will
allow traffic moving along the top of the berm to pass through the spillway (when dry).
The spillway will consist of a 6-inch thick reinforced concrete pad, designed to withstand
loadings from truck traffic, see Concrete Calculations provided in Appendix D. The
spillway is designed to handle the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) for a 6 hour
storm event for the site, see Spillway Calculations provided in Appendix D.
The spillway between Cells SA and 5B will be located on the berm separating the two
cells in the southeastern portion of Cell SA and the southwestern portion of Cell SB and
will be constructed during the Cell SB construction. The spillway will be approximately
5.8 feet deep, sloped at 2% toward Cell 5B, and include lOH:1 V approach pads that will
allow traffic moving along the top of the berm to pass through the spillway (when dry).
The spillway will consist of a 6-inch thick reinforced concrete pad, designed to withstand
loadings from truck traffic, see Concrete Calculations provided in Appendix D. The
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 19 Rev-01 May 2019
Geo syn.tee C>
consultants
spillway is designed to handle the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) for a 6 hour
storm event for the site, see Spillway Calculations provided in Appendix D.
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _01 -REDLINE 20 Rev-01 May 2019
Geosyntect>
consultants
4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This report presents the engineering design evaluations for Cells 5A and 5B at the White
Mesa Mill Facility. The calculations presented in this Design Report establish the
dimensions and properties of the liner system components (Appendix D). The design
plans and details are presented in the Construction Drawings (Appendix A),
recommended construction quality testing and observation requirements are provided in
the CQA Plan (Appendix B), and material requirements are provided in the project
Technical Specifications (Appendix C).
4.1 Limitations
The professional opinions and recommendations expressed in this report are made in
accordance with generally accepted standards of geotechnical engineering practice. This
warranty is in lieu of any other warranty either express or implied. We are responsible for
the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report based on the data relating
only to the specific project and location discussed herein. We are not responsible for use
of the information contained in this report for purposes other than those expressly stated
in this report. In the event that there are changes in the design or location of this project
that do not conform to the project as described herein, we will not be responsible for these
changes unless given the opportunity to review them and concur with them in writing.
We are not responsible for any conclusions or recommendations made by others based
upon the data or conclusions contained herein unless given the opportunity to review them
and concur with them in writing.
Gregory T. Corcoran, P.E.
Utah Registration No. 6020077-2202
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 21 Rev-OJ May 2019
Geosyntec 1.>
consultants
5. REFERENCES
City-Data.com, 2007. Blanding, Utah. Available at: www.city-data.com/city/Blanding-
Utah.html.
Daniel, D.E., and Scranton, H.G. (1996), "Report of 1995 Workshop of Geosynthetic
Clay Liners," EPA/600/R-96/149, June, 93 pgs.
EFRI 2018, Annual Tailings Wastewater Monitoring Report November 2018 (Rev-01)
Eithe, Anthony W. and Koerner. George R. 1997. Assessment o_fHDPE Geomembrane
Liner Performance in a Waste Landfill Double Liner System after Eight Years of
Service Article in Geotextiles and Geomembranes 15(4):277-287 · August 1997
(Rev-01)
Geosyntec (2006), "Cell 4A Lining System Design Report for the White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah," Prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation,
January, 2006.
Geosyntec (2007), "Cell 4B Design Report for the White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah,"
Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corporation, as revised in Round 1, Round 2,
and Round 3 Interrogatories.
Haxo. Henry E. Jr.. 1991. Compatibility o(Flexible Membrane Liners and Municipal
Solid Waste Leachates. Matrecom. Inc. Alameda, €A, EPA/600/2-91-040.
August 1991 (Rev-01)
Maisonneuve, Catherine; Pierson, Patrick; D'uquennoi, C.; Morin, Anne. Accelerated
aging tests (or geomembranes used in· landfills. 6. International Landfill
Symposium (Sardinia'97). Oct 1997. St. Margherita di Pula, Italy. pp.207-216,
1997 (Rev-01)
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2005. Based on data from 12/8/1904 to
3/31/2005 at Blanding, Utah weather station (420738).
WRCC, 2007. Monthly Average Pan Evaporation Rate for Mexican Hat, Utah. Available
at: ww, . rcc.dri.edu/ht:n'llfil s/w stevap.final.html#utah
SC0634.Design_Report5A-5B.d.20190624.REV _Ol -REDLINE 22 Rev-01 May 2019
FIGURES
2 3 4
WATER EL. 5584.9
CELL 48 BORINGS
B
I I
D
5
CELL 4A BORING
/}
6
.......
WATER fl. 5589 8
-.
PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWINGS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
7 8
LEGEND
-"' -JUNE2011 EXISTINGGROUNDMAJORCONTOUR(10')
JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND MINOR CONTOUR (2')
----EXISTING DIRT ROAD
-• -' -EXISTING FENCE
-~-PROPOSED GRADING MAJOR CONTOUR (10')
---PROPOSED GRADING MINOR CONTOUR (2')
-• -• -PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
(9 TP12-01 AS-BUil T TRENCH LOCATION
-----AS-BUil T SEISMIC LINES
~ •H-
1
0 150' 300' t...-I I
SCALE IN FEET
REV DATE DESCRIPTION ORN
TITLE:
PROJECT
SITE:
Geosyntec C>
consultants
10875 RANCHO BERNARDO RD, SUTE 200
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 PHONE: B58,874,6559
e F Ene,gy Fuel, Roso"'"' (USA) foe
CELL SA AND 58 PROPOSED GRADING
CELL 5A AND 5B PRELIMINARY CELL DESIGN
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
APP
n-JIS DRA\MNG MAY NOT BE ISSUEO
FOR PROJECT TENOER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLf.SS SEALED
DESIGN BY· GTC DATE: OCTOBER 2012
DRAWN BY: MMC PROJECT NO: SC0349
CHECKED BY: GTC FILE:
SICN,' .. T\JRE REVIEVVED BY: GTC FIGURE NO:
DATE APPROVEDBY: GTC _1 _ OF _2_
A
B
C
D
EB
EB
LEGEND
2 3 4
TOP OF TAILINGS
EXISTING GRADE 5650
5
POOL ELEVATION
(55B5 09B MSL FT)
6
EXISTING GRADE
7
TOP OF TAILINGS
5'5500
w !::, ~==-=-==~;;;:;;~~~==~~~==~~=========~==============~==~r~======~~=~=====~~~======~=======~=====~==r:::::::-----15600 §' -,---·-----------1---------------------------------~-----------------r ----------!::,
6 5550
F <(
5550 6
PROPOSED I P~OPOSED F
CELL SA SURFA E CELL SB SURFACE ~ > w j 5500 1------------------1----------------+---------------+---------------+---------------!-----------~~---+----------·l 5500 ~
S•f+oo 5+00 10+00 15+00
DISTANCE (FEET)
-.,...----------------,,---------------, 5700
EXISTING GRADE s 56501------·\---------,-----1·-----------t---------------15650 s ~ TOP OF TAILINGS ~
PROPOSED
CELL SA SURFACE
5500 ~-------------------------------------------~ 0+00 5+00 10+00
DI ST AN CE (FEET)
20+00 25+00 30+00
.r.!
0
SCALE IN FEET
REV DATE OESCRIPTION
8
ORN
--------JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND SURFACE
PROPOSED GRADING SURFACE
-----·-POOL SURFACE
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
10875 RANCHO BERNARDO RD, BUTE 200 SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
e F Ene,gy Fuel, Ra,ou,co, (USA) Inc
PHONE: [phone]
TOP OF TAILINGS SURFACE TITLE:
CELL 5A AND 5B PROPOSED GRADING -PROFILES
PROJECT:
CELL SA AND 58 PRELIMINARY CELL DESIGN
SITE: WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
APP
MIOAAWNOMAY~f'II!!~ DESIGN BY: GTC DATE: OCTOBER 2012 IQA~TIDttlllOA
Of)fl11'rM.C'PQ',.'IM.GSHAl!O. DRAWN BY; MMC PROJECT NO,: SC0349
CHECKED BY: GTC FILE:
PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWINGS SIGNATURE REVIEWED BY: GTC FIGURE NO_
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION D'1E APPROVED BY: GTC 2 OF 2
APPENDIX A-!
Construction Drawings
Option 1\. Triple Liner
~Rev-01)
A
a
C
D
(3in)
(2in)
(tin)
(11n)
3 5 8
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN DRAWINGS
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND SB
&[OPTl8-N .. B ]DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
ENERGY FUELS WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
MAY 2019
LIST OF DRAWINGS
j DRAWING
TITLE SHEET r
UINTAH
01
02
03A
036
04A
046
05
06
07
06
09
10
GRAND
SANJUAN
VICINITY MAP
~DETAIL NUMBER
~SHEET ON WHICH ABOVE
DETAIL IS PRESENTED
PREPARED FOR:
eF Energy F1101, Rosources (USA) Inc.
(21n) (3"1) (41n)
NOTTO SCALE
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC.
6425 S. HIGHWAY 191
P.O. BOX809
BLANDING, UTAH 84511
[phone]
SCALE IS BASED ON 2T X 34" NON·REOUCEO SH1'ET SIZE ~ER= 21" X 32"}
2
DETAIL
TITLE OF DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=2'
EXAMPLE: DETAIL NUMBER 4 PRESENTED ON
SHEET NO. 6 WAS REFERENCED FOR THE FIRST TIME
ON SHEET NO 3.
DETAIL IDENTIFICATION LEGEND
(ABOVE SYSTEM ALSO APPLIES TO SECTION IDENTIFICATIONS,
HOWEVER, LETTERS ARE USED INSTEAD OF NUMBERS)
PREPARED BY:
Geosyntec •>
consultants
GEOSYNTEC CONSULT ANTS
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUITE 301
SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92127
[phone]
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6
REV
ENERGY FUELS
WHITE MESA MILL
"'
LOCATION MAP
NOTTO SCALE
5116119 INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1
DATE DESCRIPTION
j
r
MMC RBO
ORN APP
Geosyntec C>
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA92127
e F Energy Fuels Resourcos (USA) Inc
PHONE: [phone]
TITLE-
TITLE SHEET
PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58 & ( -GP."FIQ@) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
SITE:
™IS ORA WING MAY NOT BE ISSUED
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED
~(£:-
06-29-16
DATE
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
GTC
MMC
RFO
GTC
GTC
DATE: MAY 2019
PROJECT NO : SC0634A
FILE: SC0634-01
DRAWING NO:
_Q_!_o,_jQ_
a
G
" a.
B
C
D
E
F'
G
\
(31n)
In)
(!in)
(11n) (21n) (31n)
·. ---/
/ I
/ ,J-_, ••• I
(41n)
SCALE IS 8ASE0 ON 22" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (BORDER = 21" X 32")
6
.-.
...... -
.! ·• _,
.1 .• /
j .,
.. ./: I ·' . '. I
;/ . I' I I
',,, I ~·,I,'
.·/
i '/
.~·/ ,-
.,
,, _________ __...
,.,..
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
a
5/16/19
REV DATE
-----
OR-13 MW-12 . ()
LEGEND
JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND MIIJOR CONTOUR (101
JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND MINOR CONTOUR (2')
EXISTING DIRT ROAD
EXISTING FENCE
SURFACE WATER BOUNDARY
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
PROPOSED GRADING MIIJOR CONTOUR (10')
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
PROPOSED STOCKPILE BOUNDARIES
KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL AREAS (SEE NOTE 6)
EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELLS
NOTES
1. EXISTING SITE FEATURE AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS BASED UPON A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON JUNE 29, 2011
THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
(USA) INC,
2. EXISTING WELLS, PIPING, AND OTHER SITE FEATURES SHALL BE
PROTECTED IN PLACE, EXCEPT AS NOTED OTHERWISE
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEGREGATE TOPSOIL, SOIL, AND ROCK
MATERIALS INTO SEPARATE STOCKPILES IN STOCKPILE AREA AS
DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER, CONTRACTOR
SHALL NOT STOCKPILE OVER DELINEATED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
4. STOCKPILE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN
2H:1 VANDA MINIMUM OF 20 FT FROM THE CREST OF THE SLOPE.
STOCKPILE WITHIN 100 FT OF CREST OF SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED
20 FT IN HEIGHT.
5. CONSTRUCTION WATER TO BE PROVIDED BY OWNER AT
NORTHEAST CORNER OF CELL 4A
6. CONTRACTOR TO AVOID KNOWN ARCHEOLOGICAL AREAS. OWNER
TO CLEAR ARCHEOLOGICAL AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF WORK PRIOR
TO BEGINNING EXCAVATION,
j
T
0 300' 600'
L;-I
SCALE IN FEET
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1
DESCRIPTION
MMC
ORN
Geosyntec C>
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA92127
e F Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
PHONE: [phone]
TITLE:
SITE PLAN
PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
ill ( -GP=AGN%) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
SITE.:.
fill0QltJi.i'i\Ni'llrMi'rfi0l ~fS5\JED fOf'~GT'~QA,
cottntll.OTIOM.ut~~l;I>-aµ~ ![!t J.~-
0 S1GNA1\JRE
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY·
DRA\oVIII BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVIEVvED BY:
GTC
MMC
RFO
GTC
DATE: MAY 2019
PROJECT NO: SC0634A
FILE. SC0634-02
DRAWING NO,:
RBO
APP
06-29-18 APPROVED BY: GTC _QL o,_J_Q_ DATIC
8
A
E
C
E
G
A
e
I X
BS8 X C .,/37.41 88.!J
X
I
) \ ) I
,...-/ ~
/
D
E
~ ..... ~32.+ r--'
":__j / (31n)
a;.s X
1 • .:5
JO)
-(2••) ,..fi''IJ ,.,/ /
(J in)
(1 1n) (21o)
CELL 48 SOIL BORING (TYP)
i
f.O, 1
/ ./
(31n) <•111)
SCALE IS BASED ON 22" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (BORDER• 21" X Jr)
MATCHLINE (SEE SHEET038)
CELL 48
WATER El. 5584.9
-, .
CELL 4A
WATER EL 5589.8
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0
LEGEND
--'570--JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND MAJOR CONTOUR (10')
JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND MINOR CONTOUR (2')
----EXISTING DIRT ROAD
-x -:< -EXISTING FENCE
--5600--
--5602--
PROPOSED GRADING MAJOR CONTOUR (1 O')
PROPOSED GRADING MINOR CONTOUR (2?
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
-----------PROPOSED GRADE BREAK
-------LIMITOFLINERSYSTEM
---5570---APPROXIMATE TOP OF ROCK CONTOUR (1') (SEE NOTES 4 AND 5)
5116119
REV DATE
™W SPLASH PAD ©
S TP12-03 EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOCATION
SEISMIC LINE LOCATIONS (SEE NOTE 4)
0
MW-33 ()
CELL 48 SOIL BORINGS (SEE NOTE 4)
EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITOR WELL
NOTES
EXISTING SITE FEATURE AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS BASED UPON A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON JUNE 29, 2011.
THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
(USA) INC.
2 CONTRACTOR SHALL SEGREGATE TOPSOIL, SOIL AND ROCK
MATERIALS INTO SEPARATE STOCKPILES IN STOCKPILE AREA AS
DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. CONTRACTOR SHALL
NOT STOCKPILE OVER DELINEATED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER,
3, STOCKPILE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN
2H:1 VANDA MINIMUM OF 20 FT FROM THE CREST OF THE SLOPE.
STOCKPILE WITHIN 100 FT OF CREST OF SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED
20 FT IN HEIGHT.
4 SEISMIC LINE DATA AND CELL 48 BORINGS ARE PROVIDED IN
SECTION 02200 OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
5. ROCK SURFACE IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON TRENCHES
PERFORMED AT THE SITE. WHERE QUESTION MARKS ARE SHOWN,
SURFACE IS ESTIMATED AND NOT BASED ON TRENCHES.
6. LOCALLY GRADE AREA NORTH OF BERM TO DRAIN AROUND BERM
0 100' 200' L-I I
SCALE IN FEET
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1
DESCRIPTION
MMC RBO
ORN APP
Geosyntec e>
consultants
1664-4 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
e F Energy Fuel, Resources (USA) Inc
PHONE: [phone]
TITLE:
CELL 5A PROPOSED GRADING
PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
& (~G~Q~) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
SITE:
TN:'.I C'Ril'r','l.lO!M'¥'NOT8E ~IIUIED
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED,
~/!;:_
V SIGNATURE
06-29-18
'"'
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY:
DRA\NN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
GTC
MMC
RFD
GTC
GTC
DATE: MAY 2019
PROJECT NO: SC0634A
FILE: SC0634 -03A-048
DRAWING NO:
03A OF 10
G
A
/ /~
e
C
0
e:
F
G
(1in)
(1in) (2in)
/
(lln) (<In)
CELL 48
WAfER EL 5584 9 CELL 4A
WATER EL. 5589.8
o[~--
cf.4.J
.......
SCALE IS BASED ON 2Z'X3•' NON-REOUCEOSHEET SIZE (BORDER= 21" xan
TITLE: / , ,,
/', / ;1
PROJECT:
LEGEND
--,570--JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND /CELL SA GRADING MAJOR CONTOUR (10)
JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND/ CELL SA GRADING MINOR CONTOUR (2)
----EXISTING DIRT ROAD
--, ------EXISTING FENCE
--5600--PROPOSED GRADING MAJOR CONTOUR (10)
PROPOSED GRADING MINOR CONTOUR (2')
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
PROPOSED GRADE BREAK
LIMITOF LINER
---5570---APPROXIMATE TOP OF ROCK CONTOUR (1') (SEE NOTES 4 AND 5)
SPLASH PAO©
6)TP12-03 EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOCATION
S/16119
DATE
SEISMIC LINE LOCATIONS (SEE NOTE 4)
0
MW-33
CELL 48 SOIL BORINGS (SEE NOTE 4)
() EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL
NOTES
1. EXISTING SITE FEATURE AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS BASED UPON A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON JUNE 29, 2011.
THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
(USA) INC.
2 CONTRACTOR SHALL SEGREGATE TOPSOIL, SOIL ANO ROCK
MATERIALS INTO SEPARATE STOCKPILES IN STOCKPILE AREA AS
DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. CONTRACTOR SHALL
NOT STOCKPILE OVER DELINEATED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWlSE BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER,
3. STOCKPILE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN
2H:1VAND A MINIMUM OF 20 FT FROM THE CREST OF THE SLOPE
STOCKPILE WlTHIN 100 FT OF CREST OF SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED
20 FT IN HEIGHT
4_ SEISMIC LINE DATA AND CELL 48 BORINGS ARE PROVIDED IN
SECTION 02200 OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
ROCK SURFACE IS APPROXIMATE AND BASED ON TRENCHES
PERFORMED AT THE SITE WHERE QUESTION MARKS ARE SHOWN,
SURFACE IS ESTIMATED AND NOT BASED ON TRENCHES.
0 100' 200' t;;-I I
SCALE IN FEET
INTERROOATORY RESPONSE 1
DESCRIPTION
MMC
ORN
Geos}Titec 1>
consultants
1664-4 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA921T/
e F Eno,gy Fuels Rosovcm (USA) Inc
PHONE: [phone]
CELL 5B PROPOSED GRADING
RBO
APP
~ J CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND 58
( ~/~l-,-,--~~~_&_1 ~(=~=E~=rn=~~=B~iG_D_OU_B_LE_L_IN_E_R_W_IT_H_G_CL~~~~~-1
Ir )' /
1
( /; // f SITE WHITE MESA MILL
r BLANDING, UTAH
ltffORA'l'lll"'#/lt'fNOT"ee.1~ DESIGN BY· GTC DATE: MAY 2019
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED DRAWN BY: MMC PROJECT NO : SC0634A {j,,,/?--CHECKED BY: RFO FILE: SCOB34 -03A-048
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN (r SIGNAT\JRE REVIEVVED BY; GTC DRAWING NO :
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 06-29-18
DATE APPROVED BY: GTC 03B 0,_1_0_
6 8
~ L) _,
I
I ~ L) ~ 2 r; a: w z w
A
B
C
0
E
F
§ u G ~
(31n)
(21n)
; (11n)
L) D ~ (1fn) g. <L
(2in) (3in)
PLAN
CE:LL 48
WAT[R [L. 5584. 9
CELL SA LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM
SCALE: 1" • 200'
CE:LL 48
WATER [L. 5584 9
CELL SA SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM
(4in) SCALE: 1" = 200'
SCALE IS BASED ON 22" X 34• NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (80ROE/l • 21" X 32")
j 65.5 X
'·
DETAIL
CELL SA SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM
SCALE: 1" = 100'
___,, REV
LEGEND
--S5 /Q--JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND MAJOR CONTOUR (101
JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND MINOR CONTOUR (2')
----EXISTING DIRT ROAD
-' -, -EXISTING FENCE
--5600--PROPOSED GRADING MAJOR CONTOUR (10')
--''°' --PROPOSED GRADING MINOR CONTOUR (2')
PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
LIMIT OF LINER SYSTEM
-·---·-·-·-PRIMARY AND SECONDARY LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM PIPING
-• -, -SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM PIPING
SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM STRIP COMPOSITE AND SAND BAGS
DR•12 0 EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITOR WELL
6i"'I SPLASH PAD~
NOTES
L EXISTING SITE FEATURE AND PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS BASED UPON A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON JUNE 29, 2011
THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
(USA) INC.
2 CONTRACTOR SHALL SEGREGATE TOPSOIL, SOIL, AND ROCK
MATERIALS INTO SEPARATE STOCKPILES IN STOCKPILE AREA AS
DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. CONTRACTOR SHALL
NOT STOCKPILE OVER DELINEATED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.
3. STOCKPILE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN
2H:1V AND A MINIMUM OF 20 FT FROM THE CREST OF THE SLOPE
STOCKPILE WITHIN 100 FT OF CREST OF SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED
20 FT IN HEIGHT,
5/16/19 INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1
DATE DESCRIPTION
MMC RBO
ORN APP
Geosyntec t>
consultants
1664,,1 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE. SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 e F Energy Fuel, Resource, (USA) Inc
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
PHONE.: tti8674 6559
TITLE:
PIPE LAYOUT PLAN AND DETAILS -CELL SA
PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
& c::ow1:nD DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
SITE:
THIS DRA'MNG MAY NOT BE 1ssueo
l'OR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED
~ ,y ' ',-J?----
SICNAlURE
06-29-18
OATE
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
GTC
MMC
RFO
GTC
GTC
DATE:
PROJECT NO;
FILE:
DRAWING NO:
04A
MAY 2019
SC0634A
SC0634 • 03A-04B
OF 10
A
B
C
0
PLAN
CELL 58 SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM CELL 58 SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM
(31n) SCALE: 1" = 200' SCALE: 1" = 100'
SCALE IS BASED ON 22" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (80R0ioR = 21" X 32'")
2 3 •
CELL SB
&1·
---
,,.
/
/
-·-·-·-
I
I
--
--
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
5
LEGEND
--?570--JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND/ CELL SA GRADING MAJOR CONTOUR (10)
JUNE 2011 EXISTING GROUND I CELL SA GRADING MINOR CONTOUR (2')
REV
----EXISTING DIRT ROAD -, -~ -EXISTING FENCE
--5600--PROPOSED GRADING MAJOR CONTOUR {10')
-----PROPOSED GRADING MINOR CONTOUR {2')
---PROPOSED GRADING LIMIT
-------LIMIT OF LINER SYSTEM
-·-·-·-·-·-PRIMARY ANO SECONDARY LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM PIPING
-·-·-SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM PIPING
--·---·--SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM STRIP COMPOSITE ANO SANO BAGS
~ SPLASH PAO©
5/16/19
DATE
NOTES
EXISTING SITE FEATURE ANO PHOTOGRAMMETRIC TOPOGRAPHIC
CONTOURS BASED UPON A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON JUNE 29, 2011.
THIS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES
(USA) INC.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEGREGATE TOPSOIL, SOIL. AND ROCK
MATERIALS INTO SEPARATE STOCKPILES IN STOCKPILE AREA AS
DIRECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER CONTRACTOR SHALL
NOT STOCKPILE OVER OELINEA TED ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES
UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
3 STOCKPILE TO BE CONSTRUCTED AT SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN
2H:1V ANO A MINIMUM OF 20 FT FROM THE CREST OF THE SLOPE
STOCKPILE WITHIN 100 FT OF CREST OF SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED
20 FT IN HEIGHT
J
T
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1
DESCRIPTION
MMC
DRN
Geosyntec t>
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 9'2127
e F Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc
PHONE: 858 674,6559
TITLE:
PIPE LAYOUT PLAN AND DETAILS -CELL 58
PROJECT:
SITE:
tlt'j tlliW\IIIO l,AATffOTH. m$.Ul"O
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
COllllb,CIJQU, urus.,,s ·~
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
OPTION B -DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
GTC
MMC
DATE
PROJECT NO:
MAY 2019
SC0634A
RBO
APP
91r{~-CHECKED BY RFO FILE: SC0634 • 03A-04B
REVIEWED BY: GTC DRAWING NO :
06-29-18 048 10 o,n: APPROVED BY: GTC OF
F
G
B
C
D
E
F
(31n)
(21n)
G
•(11n)
(1111) (2in)
60MILHDPE
GEOMEMBRANE-SMOOTH
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
DETAIL
BASE LINER SYSTEM
SCALE: 1" = 2'
BLIND FLANGE WITH CAP
DETAIL
SIDE SLOPE LINER SYSTEM
SCALE: 1" = 2'
3/4" ANCHOR BOLTS FOR TIE-DOWN STRAPS
(31n) (41n)
TERMINATE WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
AND WRAP PIPE --J WOVEN GEOTEXTILE ---
60 MILHDPE
GEOMEMBRANE-
TEXTURED
----
CONCRETE PIPEL!U
SUPPORT ~ CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
DETAIL
SLIMES DRAIN RISER
PENETRATION
SCALE: 1" • 2'
-....
SCALE IS BASED ON 22" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE {B0fl0ER = 21" X 32")
ANCHOR TRENCH BACKFILL
DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE
SCALE: 1" • 1'
60MILHDPE
GEOMEMBRANE-SMOOTH
DETAIL
ANCHOR TRENCH
SCALE: 1"•2'
CONCRETE PIPEL!U
SUPPORT ~ CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
DETAIL
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM
RISER PENETRATION
SCALE: 1" = 2'
60MILHDPE
GEOMEMBRANE • SMOOTH
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
ANCHOR TRENCH BACKFILL
DETAIL
ACCESS ROAD & ANCHOR TRENCH
SCALE: 1" = 2'
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
TOE OF SLOPE
RE.V
TIT!.£:
PROJECT:
SITE:
5/16119
DATE
NOTES:
1. DETAILS ARE SHOWN TO SCALE INDICATED EXCEPT FOR THE
GEOSYNTHETICS, WHICH ARE SHOWN AT AN EXAGGERATED
SCALE FOR CLARITY
2, ANCHOR TRENCHES MAY BE CONSTRUCTED WITH A MAXIMUM
DEPTH OF 3 5 FEET WITH UP TO 1 FOOT OF BACKFILL BETWEEN
EACH GEOMEMBRANE IN BOTTOM OF ANCHOR TRENCH
3 PREPARED SUBGRADE AT CELL BASE SHALL CONSIST OF AT
LEAST 6-INCHES OF FILL OVERLYING SANDSTONE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 02200 AND 02220 OF THE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ALL LOOSE (BLASTED OR RIPPED)
SOIL AND ROCK SHALL BE REMOVED TO EXPOSE COMPETENT
SOIL/ ROCK PRIOR TO PLACING ENGINEERING FILL,
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1 MMC
DESCRIPTION ORN
Geosyntec t> e F Ene,gy Fuels Reso,,rce, (USA) Inc
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SlJTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
PHONE: 85B 674 6559
LINER SYSTEM DETAILS I
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
& C ~~r;fe) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
Ttfl QAA.WJ.O ~y HOT II ~\il!O DESIGN BY: GTC DATE: MAY2019 '°" ~J TfH3tA CIA CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED. DRAWN BY: MMC PROJECT NO: SC0634A
RBO
APP
CHECKED BY: RFO FILE: SC0634-05-07 ~,f/--.
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN v """"""' REVIEWED BY: GTC DRAWING NO:
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 06-29-18 ~o,_1Q_ DAlE APPROVED BY: GTC
5 6 8
G
A
B
C
D
" 0..
~
§
iii a ~ <'l ,.
~ E
~ JI ~ t
9 ~ ;i; :s " ~ 0:
~ ~ ,jj
1c ~ F
~I
'& ~ ~ 'i' ;,; :s (3111) " "' § w ii' >-"' ffi (21nJ a,
;i;
8 G " !!2 0 51 (11n) " "' "2 8 ~ ~ 0:
r
12"
PREPARED
c:i~~;l~
DETAIL
60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
DRAINAGE
AGGREGATE
3
QU 4" 0 SCH. 40 PVC ~ PERFORATED PIPE
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM TRENCH
SCALE: 1" = 1'
BLIND FLANGE
WITH CAP
(1111) (2in) (31n)
~.
f ..
•
.
(41n)
• >
..
..
-
:
.
DETAIL
3/4" ANCHOR BOLTS FOR TIE-DOWN STRAPS
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM RISER
(NOTE2)
CONCRETE PIPE SUPPORT
3/4" ANCHOR BOLTS FOR TIE-DOWN STRAPS
SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM RISER
(NOTE2)
CONCRETE PIPE SUPPORT
SCALE: 1" = 2'
SCALE IS S,\SED ON 22" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (BORDER= 21" X 32")
2
PREPARED / ~ SUBGRADE ____/
/ (SEE NOTE 3)
DETAIL
SLIMES DRAIN HEADER
SCALE: 1" = 1'
B SEEANCHOR ~ TRENCH DETAIL
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
300 MIL GEONET
SEWN SEAM
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
L1U SEESLOPE ~ LINER DETAIL
DETAIL
STRIP COMPOSITE
STRIP COMPOSITE
SEWN SEAMS
STRIP COMPOSITE END
STRIP COMPOSITE END
PLAN VIEW
SEWN SEAM
60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
PREPARED __,./
------c:i:~~~~;l
----+---ACCESS ROAD, APPROX. 19' ---'---
DETAIL
SECTION VIEW
DETAIL
SLIMES DRAIN LATERAL -OPTION 2
SCALE: NTS
SEESLOPE L1U
LINER DETAIL ~
~CELLSB ~
;::-]1
CELL 5A -CELL 58 ACCESS ROAD & ANCHOR TRENCH
SCALE: 1" = 2'
MINIMUM 10' WIDE STRIP OF TEXTURED
GEOMEMBRANE EXTRUSION WELDED (4 SIDES)
TOE OF SLOPE
REV
5116119 INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1
DATE OESCAIPTION
MMC
ORN
EXTRUSION WELD uu ~ SEE BASE LINER DETAIL
Geosyntec e>
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127 e F Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc
PHONE: [phone]
RBO
APP
SPLASH PAD DETAIL TITLE:
SCALE: 1" = 2'
NOTES:
DETAILS ARE SHOWN TO SCALE INDICATED EXCEPT FOR THE GEOSYNTHETICS, WHICH ARE
SHOWN AT AN EXAGGERATED SCALE FOR CLARITY.
2. EXPOSED PVC PIPE SHALL BE PAINTED TO MINIMIZE DAMAGE DUE TO UV.
PREPARED SUBGRAOE AT CELL BASE SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST 6-INCHES OF FILL OVERLYING
SANDSTONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 02200 ANO 02220 OF THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS ALL LOOSE (BLASTED OR RIPPED) SOIL AND ROCK SHALL BE REMOVED TO
EXPOSE COMPETENT SOIL/ ROCK PRIOR TO PLACING ENGINEERING FILL.
4 WOVEN GEOTEXTILE SHALL BE FOLDED OVER AND SEAMED, GEOTEXTILE SHALL BE FILLED WITH
UOOT CONCRETE SANO TO CREATE A CONTINUOUS SANDBAG-LIKE STRUCTURE WITH A MINIMUM
OF 3" OF SANO ABOVE STRIP COMPOSITE ENDS SHALL BE SEAMED FOLLOWING SANO FILLING PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6
LINER SYSTEM DETAILS 11
PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
& (~~[@[~) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
m, IJRA\",,,l.;I r,1,11,THQT .e!Y.µU(O
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONS1RUCTION, UNLESS SEALED
r;jp.ft ----
;; SIGNATURE
06-29-16
DATE
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
GTC
MMC
RFO
GTC
GTC
DATE: MAY 2019
PROJECT NO : SC0634A
FILE: SC0634-05-07
DRAWING NO.:
___QLo,_J_Q_
G
B
C
0
E
F
(31n)
(21n)
G
(11n)
4" 0 SCH, 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE ~ w
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
60 MIL SMOOTH HDPE
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
DRAINAGE AGGREGATE
SECTION
LEAK DETECTION SUMP
SCALE: 1" = 2'
BEGIN BEGIN
SMOOTH HDPE TEXTURED HDPE
BEGIN
SMOOTH HDPE
.._ ____ s· ____ _,
BEGIN
TEXTURED HDPE
60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE -
TEXTURED
•
4" 0 SCH. 40 PVC LDS PIPE
\
\
\
\
"'
5:,
45'
CELL
FLOOR\
eono,.,,__/
OF SUMP
e·
4 5'
4" 0 SCH. 40 PVC
SLIMES DRAIN PIPE
I
7
3:1
I
I
I
0 ...
. . .. ~ .. ~ ... . . --:---~--WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
DRAINAGE AGGREGATE
CELL
FLOOR
/
/ ""-CELL
FLOOR \
.•I ....
(11n) (2in)
... ..o; .-. ,, ---;-_____ "=";;--:.---.----------
4" 0 SCH, 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE ~
(LEAK DETECTION PIPE) ~ GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
(3ln) (41n)
60 MIL SMOOTH HDPE GEOMEMBRANE
4" 0 SCH. 40 PVC PERFORATED PIPE@
(LEAK DETECTION PIPE) ~
300 MIL GEONET
~/ .. ·.,,-.~ . ., ""/
>
SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 2'
L1U SEE DETAIL l 4" 0 SCH. 40 PERFORATED PVC PIPE 0 0 QD
60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE-SMOOT~ -___ -_ ,;~,;: /-A WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
DRAINAGE : ,,fT • '.S' / ~ CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
AGGREGATE I , ,,/'_;,:. . ~· ~ . ~ , I Cdit~_-_ ... ..:-_~ .-------------.-------
----~ --------------------
,.
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
" ".(, ·/, '.,,.,, -~/' ./ 1 ,; • PR£PAREo
,,,,.--SUBGRADE
/ (SEE NOTE 1)
SECTION
SLIMES DRAIN AND LOS PIPING SECTION
SCALE: 1" = 2'
SCALE IS BASED otl 22" X 34' NON•REOIJCEO SHEET Sile (BORDER = 21" X 3~1
2
/
• I ,.. 3:1 3:1
I
3.1 3:1
3:1
I
~ 3:1
LDS 1 B" 0 SCH, 40 PVC RISER
SLIMES DRAIN
16" 0 SCH, 40
PVC RISER
NOTES:
6u ~
1. PREPARED SUBGRADE AT CELL BASE SHALL CONSIST OF AT
LEAST 6-INCHES OF FILL OVERLYING SANDSTONE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 02200 AND 02220 OF THE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. ALL LOOSE (BLASTED OR RIPPED)
SOIL AND ROCK SHALL BE REMOVED TO EXPOSE COMPETENT
SOIL/ ROCK PRIOR TO PLACING ENGINEERING FILL
DETAILS ARE SHOWN TO SCALE INDICATED EXCEPT FOR THE
GEOSYNTHETICS, WHICH ARE SHOWN AT AN EXAGGERATED
SCALE FOR CLARITY. SOIL THICKNESSES ARE MINIMUMS.
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6
PLAN
SUMP PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1" = 6'
5/16/19 INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1 MMC RBO
REV DATE DESCRIPTION ORN APP
Geosyntec t>
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
e F Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc
PHONE: [phone]
TITLE:
DETAILS & SECTIONS Ill
PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
ffi (:GP.'FI(!@) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
SITE:
llillCIRJl~IMY.~Tlf lJ5l.ifD
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED,
~Jy,fi,:_
v SIGNAlURE
06-29-16 ,.,,
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
GTC
MMC
RFC
GTC
GTC
DATE: MAY 2019
PROJECT NO: SC0634A
FILE: SC0634-0S.07
DRAWING NO:
__QZ_ Of' _jQ_
A
B
C
D
E
(3"'1
(211'1)
G
(lin)
(1in) (2in)
BEGIN BEGIN
SMOOTH HDPE I TEXTURED HDPE SAND BAGS (TYP,)
~ CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
--V CONTINUOUS ROWS, BOTH SIDES
I'
;~~;~~ I I WOVEN GEOTEXTILE
30 MIL WOVEN ~ 1
r ----
GEONET ~
/
NOTES:
1. PREPARED SUBGRADE AT CELL BASE SHALL CONSIST OF AT
LEAST 6-INCHES OF FILL OVERLYING SANDSTONE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 02200 AND 02220 OF THE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, ALL LOOSE (BLASTED OR RIPPED)
SOIL AND ROCK SHALL BE REMOVED TO EXPOSE COMPETENT
SOIL/ ROCK PRIOR TO PLACING ENGINEERING FILL
2. DETAILS ARE SHOWN TO SCALE INDICATED EXCEPT FOR THE
GEOSYNTHETICS, WHICH ARE SHOWN AT AN EXAGGERATED
SCALE FOR CLARITY. SOIL THICKNESSES ARE MINIMUMS.
(3in) (4in)
SCALE IS BASED ON 22" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (BORDER = 21" X 32')
SAND BAGS (TYP.) SEWN SEAM
CONTINUOUS ROWS, BOTH SIDES ~
1
_c
1
1/ CUSHION TO ~ WOVEN
==n
16" 0 SCH 40 PEllFOAATED
PVCRISER ~
DRAINAGE AGGREGATE ~
SECTION
SECTION
SUMP SECTION (SLOPE)
SCALE: 1" = 2'
DRAINAGE AGGREGATE
6
BEGIN BEGIN
TEXTURE~ I ~H HDPE
30 MIL
GEONET
60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE -TEXTURED
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER
60 MIL HDPE GEOMEMBRANE -TEXTURED
REV
5/16/19
DATE
PREPARED /
SUBGRADE _/
/(SEENOTE1)
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1
DESCRIPTION
MMC RBO
ORN APP
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 921 '27
e F Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
6
PHONE: asa 674 6559
TIJLE
DETAILS & SECTIONS IV
PROJECT: CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
ill ( -0Pll9N-B-) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
SITE:
ll-llS DRAWING MAY NOT BE ISSUED
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED
9,r(!:-
06-29-16
OATIC
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
DESIGN BY:
DRAWN BY:
CHECKED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY·
GTC
MMC
RFC
GTC
GTC
DATE: MAY 2019
PROJECT NO: SC0634A
FILE: SC0634-05-07
DRAWING NO:
__QL.,._J_Q_
"' a.
0
" " "'
B
C
D
E
F
G
(31n)
(21n)
(1 n)
(11n) (21n) (41n)
ACCESS ROAD
,-~-----------------55' ---------------4------------40' -----------.----------------55' ---------------4----'--l
-----------11 --------
60 MIL GEOMEMBRANE
CONNECTOR (NOTE 6)
10\MAlC)
WELDED WIRE FABRIC
(SEE NOTE3) 5.5'
---:.--...:.._--------_·------------------------
6" THICK CONCRETE
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
-----11
IQ(MAJI!
------------
60 MIL GEOMEMBRANE
CONNECTOR (NOTE 6)
60 MIL GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
60 MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE -TEXTURED
(SPLASH PAD)
EXTRUSION I/I/ELD 60 MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE CONNECTOR TO 60
MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
EXTRUSION I/I/ELD 60 MIL HOPE -TEXTURED
TO 60 MIL HOPE SMOOTH GEOMEMBRANE
(TYP) (4 SIDES)
SECTION
SPILLWAY -SECTION-SA
SCALE: 1" = 8'
SECTION
PLAN
SPILLWAY PLAN -5A
SCALE: 1" = 20'
EXTRUSION WELD
60 MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE
CONNECTOR TO 60 MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE SMOOTH EXISTING CELL 48 GROUND SURFACE
EXISTING CELL 48 60 MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE-SMOOTH
-3• (MIN.) EXISTING CELL 48 GEONET
·-
EXISTING CELL 48 60 MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE-SMOOTH
NOTES:
1. CUSHION GEOTEXTILE SHALL BE PLACED OVERLYING PRIMARY
GEOMEMBRANE WHERE CONCRETE IS INSTALLED.
DETAILS ARE SHOWN TO SCALE INDICATED EXCEPT FOR THE
GEOSYNTHETICS, WHICH ARE SHOWN AT AN EXAGGERATED
SCALE FOR CLARITY,
3. WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED AT CENTER OF
CONCRETE SLAB SECTION
SPLASH PAD AT SPILLWAY SHALL BE 150' WIDE, SHALL EXTEND 5'
ONTO THE FLOOR AND BE EXTRUSION WELDED ON ALL FOUR (4)
SIDES TO PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE.
REV
TITLE:
PROJECT·
SITE
5116119
DATE
5, CUT AND FOLD BACK EXISTING LINER SYSTEM GEOSYNTHETIC
LAYERS (60 mil HOPE MEMBRANE, 300 mil GEONET, 60 mil HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE, GCL) TO ALLOW EXCAVATION OF SPILLWAY.
REPLACE LINER SYSTEM GEOSYNTHETICS LAYERS ONTO NEW
SPILLWAY GRADES AND NEW ANCHOR TRENCH NEW ANCHOR
TRENCH SHALL BE TIED INTO EXISTING ANCHOR TRENCH.
6. ANCHOR 60 MIL GEOMEMBRANE CONNECTOR AT TOP OF 10H:1V
SLOPE IN 12" DEEP ANCHOR TRENCH
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1 MMC
DESCRIPTION ORN
Geosyntec 1> e F Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE, SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
PHONE: [phone]
DETAILS & SECTIONS V
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 5B
& ~ DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
THIIOflAV~Wi.,rJOJ8flJI~ DESIGN BY: GTC DATE: MAY 2019
FOR PROJECT TENDER OR
CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS SEALED. DRAWN BY: MMC PROJECT NO· SC0634A
RBO
APP
CHECKED BY: RFO FILE: SC0634-05-07
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN fk(£-
REVIE\J\/ED BY: GTC DRAWING NO:
06-29-18
SCALE IS BASED ON 22" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (8DRDEFI a 21" JI 32"J NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DA" APPROVED BY: GTC ~o,_1Q_
2 e
F
G
" Q.
A
8
C
D
E
G
(31t1)
(!lo)
(HnJ (2in) (3in)
ACCESS ROAD r s· -11----------------ss· ---------------+-----------40· ------------11------------------54·
(41n)
------------
60 MIL GEDMEMBRANE
CONNECTOR (NOTE 6)
---------,1
10 (MAX)
EXTRUSION WELD
60 MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE CONNECTOR TO
60 MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
EXISTING CELL SA 60 MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE-SMOOTH
EXISTING CELL SA 60 MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE • DRAIN LINER
EXISTING GEOSYNTHETIC
CLAY LINER
2 1r:::;
_.,. , ..
5 3'
---~--------
6" THICK CONCRETE
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
.,,.-.,,,.
NEW ANCHOR TRENCH
(SEE NOTES)
/
SCALE IS BASED ON 22'" X 34" NON-REDUCED SHEET SIZE (BORDER= 21" X 32')
3
6,4'
-----------------------
WELDED WIRE FABRIC
(SEE NOTE 3)
SECTION
SPILLWAY -SECTION-58
SCALE: 1" = 8'
--i---60 MILHDPE --
GEOMEMBRANE
CONNECTOR
SPILLWAY PLAN -58
SCALE: 1" • 20'
-------------
6" THICK CONCRETE
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
60 MIL GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
------------------
10(MAX)
EXTRUSION WELD
60 MIL GEOMEMBRANE
CONNECTOR (NOTE 6)
60 MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE CONNECTOR TO
60 MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
INTERIM CELL SB SIDE SLOPE
[TO BE RE-GRADED TO 2H:1 V)
-~(MIN 60 MIL HOPE
' -.. GEOMEMBRANE -TEXTURED
I' -..._ ~SPLASH PAD)
NOTES:
1, CUSHION GEOTEXTILE SHALL BE PLACED OVERLYING PRIMARY
GEOMEMBRANE WHERE CONCRETE IS INSTALLED,
2, DETAILS ARE SHOWN TO SCALE INDICATED EXCEPT FOR THE
GEOSYNTHETICS, WHICH ARE SHOWN AT AN EXAGGERATED
SCALE FOR CLARITY.
3, WELDED V\1RE FABRIC SHALL BE INSTALLED AT CENTER OF
CONCRETE SLAB SECTION
4. SPLASH PAD AT SPILLWAY SHALL BE 158' WIDE, SHALL EXTEND 5'
ONTO THE FLOOR AND BE EXTRUSION WELDED ON ALL FOUR (4)
SIDES TD PRIMARY GEOMEMBRANE
REV
TITLE:
PROJECT:
SITE:
5/16119
OATE
5, CUT AND FOLD BACK EXISTING LINER SYSTEM GEOSYNTHETIC
LAYERS (60 mil HOPE MEMBRANE, 300 mil GEONET, 60 mil HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE, GCL) TO ALLOW EXCAVATION OF SPILLWAY
REPLACE LINER SYSTEM GEOSYNTHETICS LAYERS ONTO NEW
SPILLWAY GRADES AND NEW ANCHOR TRENCH. NEW ANCHOR
TRENCH SHALL BE TIED INTO EXISTING ANCHOR TRENCH_
6, ANCHOR 60 MIL GEOMEMBRANE CONNECTOR AT TOP OF 10H:1V
SLOPE IN 12" DEEP ANCHOR TRENCH,
INTERROGATORY RESPONSE 1 MMC
DESCRIPTION ORN
Geosyntec 1> e F Ene,gy Fuels Resou,ces (USA) Inc
consultants
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE. SUTE 301
SAN DIEGO, CA92127 PHONE: [phone]
DETAILS & SECTIONS VI
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
ill (~)~f.[$.!f!}) DOUBLE LINER WITH GCL
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
'nG~fkJIIA?'M>TetSSUDJ DESIGN BY: GTC DATE: MAY 2019 Feft~TRNCQ'QR
CONSTRUCTION. UNLESS SEALED DRAWN BY MMC PROJECT NO: SC0634A
RBO
APP
/) µ-
CHECKED BY: RFO FILE: SC0634-05-07
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN f/1r .!::--REVIEVVED BY: GTC DRAWING NO:
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 06-29-18
°'" APPROVED BY: GTC _1_0_ OF ___J_Q___
e 8
Construction Drawings
Option B Double Liner \Vith Geosynthetic
Clay Liner
(Rev-01)
APPENDIXB
Construction Quality Assurance Plan
Revision
00
01
Prepared for
Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc.
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, UT 84511
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
Issue Date
August 2017
Mav 2019
ASSU NCE PLAN
Notes
5AAND SB
TE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
Prepared by
Geosyntec t>
consultants
engineers I scientists I innovators
16644 West Bernardo Rd, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92127
Project Number SC0634
Issue for UDEQ Review
DEQ Interrogatory Response I (IR-1)
CERTIFICATION PAGE
CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (CQA) PLAN FOR
CELLS SA AND SB CONSTRUCTION
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA), INC.
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
The Engineering material and data contained in this CQA were prepared under the
supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose s·-=~~ a registered Professional
Engineer is affixed below.
Gregory T. Corcoran
Engineer of Rec r
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ,d I August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Terms of Reference ....................................................................................... 1
1.2 Purpose and Scope of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan .................. 1
1.3 References ..................................................................................................... 2
1.4 Organization of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan ........................... 2
2. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE ... 3
2.1 Owner ............................................................................................................ 3
2.2 Construction Manager ................................................................................... 3
2.3 Design Engineer ............................................................................................ 4
2.4 Contractor .................................................................................................... 4
2.5 Resin Supplier ........................................................................................... 5
2.6 Manufacturers .......................................................................................... 5
2.7 Geosynthetic Installer. ............................................................................. 5
2.8 CQA Consultant ........................................................................................ 6
2.9 Surveyor ................................................................................................... 6
2.10 CQA Laboratory .................. ~ ...................................................................... 7
2.11
3.
3.2
3.3
4.
4.1 eordinaf Meetings ................................................................... 13
Pr -o uction Meeting .............................................................. 13
4.1.2 Pro ~ss Meetings .......................................................................... 14
4.1.3 Problem or Work Deficiency Meeting .......................................... 14
5. DOCUMENTATION ............................................................................................. 15
5 .1 Overview ..................................................................................................... 15
5.2 Daily Recordkeeping ................................................................................... 15
5.3 Construction Problems and Resolution Data Sheets ................................... 16
5.4 Photographic Documentation ...................................................................... 17
5.5 Design or Specifications Changes ............................................................... 17
5.6 CQA Report ................................................................................................ 17
6. WELL ABANDONMENT ..................................................................................... 19
6.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 19
6.2 CQA Monitoring Activities ......................................................................... 19
6.2.1 Materials ........................................................................................ 19
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/ 90530.Rev-01. d II August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consuJtants
6.2.2 Well Abandonment ........................................................................ 19
6.2.3 Deficiencies ................................................................................... 19
6.2.4 Notification .................................................................................... 19
6.2.5 Repairs and Re-testing ................................................................... 20
7. EARTHWORK ....................................................................................................... 21
7 .1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 21
7.2 Earthwork Testing Activities ...................................................................... 21
7 .2.1 Sample Frequency ......................................................................... 21
7 .2.2 Sample Selection ........................................................................... 21
7.3 CQA Monitoring Activities ......................................................................... 22
7.3 .1 Vegetation Removal ..................................................................... 22
7.3 .2 Top soil Removal.................................. .. .. ................................... 22
7.3.3 Engineered Fill. ............................... _ . -· ..................................... 22
7 .3 .4 Sub grade Soil. ............................................................................ 22
7.3.5 Fine Grading ........................... " ................................................... 23
7.3.6 Anchor Trench Construct'@ ...................................................... 23
7.4
7.4.2 Repairs and Re-Te ·
8. DRAINAGE AGGREGATE ........................ n .................................................. 25
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
· 1 ation .................................................................................... 27
Repai s and Re-testing ................................................................... 27
9. POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) PIPE AND STRIP COMPOSITE .................. 28
9 .1 Material Requirements ................................................................................ 28
9 .2 Manufacturer ............................................................................................... 28
9.2.1 Submittals ...................................................................................... 28
9.3 Testing Activities ....................................................................................... 28
9.4 Handling and Laying ................................................................................... 29
9.5 Perforations ................................................................................................. 29
9.6 Joints ........................................................................................................... 29
9.7 Strip Composite ........................................................................................... 29
10. GEO MEMBRANE ................................................................................................. 30
10.1 General ........................................................................................................ 30
10.2 Geomembrane Material Conformance ........................................................ 30
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 111 August :2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
10.2.1 Introduction .................................................................................... 30
10.2.2 Review of Quality Control.. ........................................................... 30
10.2.2.1 Material Properties Certification ................................... 30
10.2.2.2 Geomembrane Roll MQC Certification ........................ 31
10.2.3 Conformance Testing ..................................................................... 31
10.3 Delivery ....................................................................................................... 32
10 .3 .1 Transportation and Handling ......................................................... 3 2
10.3.2 Storage ........................................................................................... 32
10.4 Geomembrane Installation .......................................................................... 32
10.4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................... 32
10.4.2 Earthwork ...................................................................................... 33
10.4.2.1 Surface Preparation ..................................................... 33
10.4.2.2 Geosynthetic Terminatio . . .. . .................................... 33
10.4.3 Geomembrane Placement.. ......................................................... 33
10.4.3.1 Panel Identificati01 ................................................... 33
10.4.3.2 Field Panel Place ent ................................................ 34
10.4.4 Field Seaming...................... .. .... . ............................................... 36
10.4.4.1
10.4.4.2
10.4.4.3
Evaluation ..................................................................... 46
10.4.5.3 Repair Procedures ......................................................... 46
10 .4. 5 .4 Verification of Repairs .................................................. 4 7
10.4.5.5 Large Wrinkles .............................................................. 47
10.4.6 Lining System Acceptance ............................................................ 47
11. GEOTEXTILE ........................................................................................................ 49
11.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 49
11.2 Manufacturing ............................................................................................. 49
11.3 Labeling ....................................................................................................... 50
11.4 Shipment and Storage ................................................................................. 50
11.5 Conformance Testing .................................................................................. 50
11.5.1 Tests ............................................................................................... 50
11.5.2 Sampling Procedures ..................................................................... 51
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ.d IV August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
GeosyntecD
consultants
11.5.3 Test Results .................................................................................... 51
11.5.4 Conformance Sample Failure ........................................................ 51
11.6 Handling and Placement ............................................................................. 52
11. 7 Seams and Overlaps .................................................................................... 52
11.8 Repair .......................................................................................................... 52
11.9 Placement of Soil or Aggregate Materials .................................................. 53
12. GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) (Rev-01) .............................................. 54
12.1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 54
12.2 Manufacturing ............................................................................................. 54
12.3 Labeling ....................................................................................................... 55
12.4 Shipment and Storage ................................................................................ 55
12.5 Conformance Testing .................................................................................. 55
12.5.1 Tests ............................................................................................ 55
12.5.2 Conformance Sample Failure .................................................... 56
12.6 GCL Delivery and Storage ....................................................................... 56
12.7 GCL Installation ...................................................................................... 57
13. GEONET ........................................................................................................... 58
14.
13.1
13.2
13.3
13.4
13.5
13.6
13.7
13.8
14 .1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 62
14.2 CQA Monitoring Activities ......................................................................... 62
14.2.1 Subgrade Preparation ..................................................................... 62
14.2.2 Liner System and Cushion Geotextile Installation ........................ 62
14.2.3 Welded Wire Reinforcement Installation ...................................... 62
14.2.4 Concrete Installation ...................................................................... 62
14.2.5 Conformance Testing ..................................................................... 63
14.3 Deficiencies ................................................................................................. 63
14.3.1 Notification .................................................................................... 63
14.3.2 Repairs ........................................................................................... 63
15. SURVEYING ......................................................................................................... 64
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d V August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
15.1 Survey Control ............................................................................................ 64
15.2 Precision and Accuracy ............................................................................... 64
15.3 Lines and Grades ......................................................................................... 64
15.4 Frequency and Spacing ............................................................................... 64
15.5 Documentation ............................................................................................ 64
TABLES
IA Test Procedures for the Evaluation of Earthwork
IB Minimum Earthwork Testing Frequencies
2A Test Procedures for the Evaluation of Aggre te
28 Minimum Aggregate Testing Frequencie onformance Testing
3 Geomembrane Conformance Testing Requi · . ents
4 Geotextile Conformance Testing Require 1 nts
5 GCL Conformance Testing Requirem (Re -1)
6 Geonet Conformance Testing Require e it
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530 Rev-01.d Vl August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) has prepared this Construction Quality Assurance
(CQA) Plan for the construction of liner systems associated with the Cells SA and SB
Lining Systems Construction at the Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc. (Energy Fuels)
White Mesa Mill Facility (site), located at 6425 South Highway 191, Blanding, Utah
84511. This CQA Plan was prepared by Ms. Rebecca Flynn, P.E., ofGeosyntec, and was
reviewed by Mr. Gregory T. Corcoran, P.E., also of Geosyntec, in general accordance
with the peer review policies of the firm.
1.2 Pur ose and Seo e of the Construction
The purpose of the CQA Plan is to address
proper construction of the major cm
protocols; (iv) establish guidelines for c
means for assuring that the pr ~ is con n conformance to the Technical
Specifications, permit condif a , icab ·egulatory requirements, and Construction
Drawings.
ork and geosynthetic components of the liner system
for the project. eruthw ge ntbetic and appurtenant components include well
abandonment, e ation, fill, prepared subgrade, geomembrane, geotextile, geonet,
drainage aggregate, , . olyY'. yl chloride (PVC) pipe. It should be emphasized that care
and documentation are ired in the placement of aggregate and in the production and
installation of the geosynthetic materials installed during construction. This CQA Plan
delineates procedures to be followed for monitoring construction utilizing these materials.
The CQA monitoring activities associated with the selection, evaluation, and placement
of drainage aggregate are included in the scope of this plan. The CQA protocols
applicable to manufacturing, shipping, handling, and installing all geosynthetic materials
are also included. However, this CQA Plan does not specifically address either
installation specifications or specification of soils and geosynthetic materials as these
requirements are addressed in the Technical Specifications.
SC0634, CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O J .d 1 A.ugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
1.3 References
The CQA Plan includes references to test procedures in the latest editions of the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
1.4 Oi·ganization of the Construction Quality Assurance Plan
The remainder of the CQA Plan is organized as follows:
• Section 2 presents definitions relating to CQA;
• Section 3 describes the CQA personnel and duti
• Section 4 describes site and project control · gu· e1.1ents·
• Section 5 presents CQA documentatiot ·
•
•
• Section 8 presents CQA of
•
•
•
• liner GCL (Rev-01 );_
•
• · e ts CQA of the concrete spillway; and
•
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ.d 2 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec l>
consultants
2. DEFINITIONS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION QUALITY
ASSURANCE
This CQA Plan is devoted to Construction Quality Assurance. In the context of this
document, Construction Quality Assurance and Construction Quality Control are defined
as follows:
Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) -A planned and systematic pattern of means and
actions designed to assure adequate confidence that materials or services meet contractual
and regulatory requirements and will perform satisfactorily in service. CQA refers to
means and actions employed by the CQA Consultant to assur conformity of the project
"Work" with this CQA Plan, the Construction Dr ing, and the Technical
Specifications. CQA testing of aggregate, pipe, and geo . e ic components is provided
by the CQA Consultant.
2.1 Owner
2.2
Responsibilities
ovide a means to measure and
tion to contractual and regulatory
o those actions taken by the
verify that the materials and the
the Construction Drawings, and
e geosynthetic components and piping of
er, Geosynthetic Installer, and Contractor.
The Construction Manager is responsible for managing the construction and
implementation of the Construction Drawings and Technical Specifications for the
project work. The Construction Manager is selected/appointed by the Owner.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 3 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
2.3 Design Engineer
Responsibilities
The Design Engineer is responsible for the design, Construction Drawings, and Technical
Specifications for the project work. In this CQA Plan, the term "Design Engineer" refers
to Geosyntec.
Qua! ifications
The Engineer of Record shall be a qualified engineer, registered s required by regulations
in the State of Utah. The Design Engineer should have e pertise, which demonstrates
significant familiarity with piping, geosynthetics an ei1 as appropriate, including
design and construction experience related to liner S¥,
2.4 Contractor
Responsibilities
enden party or parties, contracted by the
with this CQA Plan, the Construction
Speci lCation ·. he Contractor will be responsible for the
ag · aggr gate and geosynthetic components of the
de subgrade preparation, anchor trench excavation and
a gate for the slimes drain and two leak detection
piping, placement of cast-in-place concrete, and
eosynthe6c Installer and other subcontractors.
The Contractor will be responsible for constructing the liner system and appurtenant
components in accordance with the Construction Drawings and complying with the
quality control requirements specified in the Technical Specifications.
Qua! ifications
Qualifications of the Contractor are specific to the construction contract. The Contractor
should have a demonstrated history of successful earthworks, piping, and liner system
construction and shall maintain current state and federal licenses as appropriate.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O l ,d 4 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
2.5 Resin Supplier
Responsibilities
The Resin Supplier produces and delivers the resin to the Geosynthetics Manufacturer.
Qualifications
Qualifications of the Resin Supplier are specific to the Manufacturer's requirements. The
Resin Supplier will have a demonstrated history of providing resin with consistent
properties.
2.6 Manufacturers
Responsibilities
The Manufacturers are responsible for the produc i n
geotextile, geonet, and pipe) from appr
Qualifications
The Manufacturer( s) will
personnel to meet the demu.11, ... "U;•.--..
cjent production capacity and qualified
roj ct. The Manufacturer(s) must be a well-
e re~uirements identified in the Technical Specifications. established firm(s) , ts t
2.7
Responsibilities
The Geosynthetic Installer is responsible for field handling, storage, placement, seaming,
ballasting or anchoring against wind uplift, and other aspects of the geosynthetic material
installation. The Geosynthetic Installer may also be responsible for specialized
construction tasks (i.e., including construction of anchor trenches for the geosynthetic
materials).
Qualifications
The Geosynthetic Installer will be trained and qualified to install the geosynthetic
materials of the type specified for this project. The Geosynthetic Installer shall meet the
qualification requirements identified in the Technical Specifications.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-01 d 5 !.ugust 2(117 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
2.8 COA Consultant
Responsibilities
The CQA Consultant is a party, independent from the Owner, Contractor, Manufacturer,
and Geosynthetic Installer, who is responsible for observing, testing, and documenting
activities related to the CQC and CQA of the earthwork, piping, and geosynthetic
components used in the construction of the Project as required by this CQA Plan and the
Technical Specifications. The CQA Consultant will also be responsible for issuing a
CQA report at the completion of the Project construction, whi · documents construction
and associated CQA activities. The CQA report will be i -ed and sealed by the CQA
Engineer who will be a Professional Engineer regi tered: n State of Utah.
Qualifications
The CQA Consultant shall be a well-establishe
to conduct the geotechnical and geosyr
The AC
The CQA Consu
materials simila
Consultant will be e
e peii ced with earthwork and installation of geosynthetic
those m erials used in construction of the Project. The CQA
in the preparation of CQA documentation including CQA
field testing procedures, laboratory testing procedures,
construction specifications construction drawings, and CQA reports.
The CQA Site Manager will be specifically familiar with the construction of earthworks,
piping, and geosynthetic lining systems. The CQA Site Manager will be trained by the
CQA Consultant in the duties as CQA Site Manager.
2.9 Surveyor
Responsibilities
The Surveyor is a party, independent from the Contractor, Manufacturer, and
Geosynthetic Installer, that is responsible for surveying, documenting, and verifying the
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev·Ol.d 6 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
location of all significant components of the Work. The Surveyor's work is coordinated
and employed by the Contractor. The Surveyor is responsible for issuing Record
Drawings of the construction.
Qualifications
The Surveyor will be a well-established surveying company with at least 3 years of
surveying experience in the State of Utah. The Surveyor will be a licensed professional
as required by the State of Utah regulations. The Surveyor shall be fully equipped and
experienced in the use of total stations and the recent version of AutoCAD. All surveying
will be performed under the direct supervision of the Contrac o .
2.10 COA Laboratory
Responsibilities
Qua! ifications
ex ience in testing soils and geosynthetic materials and
will be familiar wi other applicable test standards. The CQA Laboratory
will be capable of p t results within a maximum of seven days of receipt of
samples and will ma· that capability throughout the duration of earthworks
construction and geosynthetic materials installation. The CQA Laboratory will also be
capable of transmitting geosynthetic destructive test results within 24 hours ofreceipt of
samples and will maintain that capability throughout the duration of geosynthetic material
installation.
2.11 Lines of Communication
The following organization chart indicates the lines of communication and authority
related to this project.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-OJ.d 7 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
2.12
Project Organization Chart
Energy Fuels
White Mesa Mill Cell 4B
Owner/Construe Ion Manager
Energy Fuels
Geosyntec t>
consultants
CQA Consultant
CQA Laboratory
If a defect is discovered in the work, the CQA Engineer will evaluate the extent and nature
of the defect. If the defect is indicated by an unsatisfactory test result, the CQA Engineer
will determine the extent of the deficient area by additional tests, observations, a review
of records, or other means that the CQA Engineer deems appropriate.
After evaluating the extent and nature of a defect, the CQA Engineer will notify the
Construction Manager and schedule appropriate re-tests when the work deficiency is
corrected by the Contractor.
The Contractor will correct the deficiency to the satisfaction of the CQA Engineer. If a
project specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual weather conditions hinder work,
then the CQA Engineer will develop and present to the Design Engineer suggested
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01 d 8 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
solutions for approval. Major modification to the Construction Drawings, Technical
Specifications, or this CQA Plan must be provided to the regulatory agency for review
prior to implementation.
Defect corrections will be monitored and documented by CQA personnel prior to
subsequent work by the Contractor in the area of the deficiency.
SC0634.CQAP!an5A.20190530.Rev-O I .d 9 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
3. CQA CONSULTANT'S PERSONNEL AND DUTIES
3.1 Overview
The CQA Engineer will provide supervision within the scope of work of the CQA
Consultant. The scope of work for the CQA Consultant includes monitoring of
construction activities including the following:
• earthwork;
• subgrade preparation;
• installation of geomembrane;
• installation of geonet;
• installation of drainage aggregate;
• installation of piping; and
• installation of geotextile .
3.2 COA Personnel
• ho work from the office of the CQA Consultant and
•
3.3· COA Engineer
The CQA Engineer shall supervise and be responsible for monitoring and CQA activities
relating to the construction of the earthworks, piping, and installation of the geosynthetic
materials of the Project. Specifically, the CQA Engineer:
• reviews the project design, this CQA Plan, Construction Drawings, and
Technical Specifications;
• reviews other site-specific documentation; unless otherwise agreed, such
reviews are for familiarization and for evaluation of constructability only, and
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-O/.d 10 !.ugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
3.4
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
hence the CQA Engineer and the CQA Consultant assume no responsibility
for the liner system design;
• reviews and approves the Geosynthetic Installer's Quality Control (QC) Plan;
• attends Pre-Construction Meetings as needed;
• administers the CQA program (i.e., provides supervision of and manages
onsite CQA personnel, reviews field reports, and provides engineering review
of CQA related activities);
• provides quality control of CQA documentation and conducts site visits;
• reviews the Record Drawings; and
• ort documenting that the
project was constructed in accordance wi
COA Site Manager
The CQA Site Manager:
•
• daily, weekly ( or
•
•
• oversees the · l ction and shipping of laboratory test samples;
• reviews results oflaboratory testing and makes appropriate recommendations;
• reviews the calibration and condition of onsite CQA equipment;
• prepares a daily summary report for the project;
• reviews the Manufacturer's Quality Control (MQC) documentation;
• reviews the Geosynthetic Installer's personnel Qualifications for conformance
with those pre-approved for work on site;
• notes onsite activities in daily field reports and reports to the CQA Engineer
and Construction Manager;
SC0634,CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ,d 11 August :2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec0
consultants
• reports unresolved deviations from the CQA Plan, Construction Drawings,
and Technical Specifications to the Construction Manager; and
• assists with the preparation of the CQA report.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530,Rev-O J .d 12 August 1017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
4. SITE AND PROJECT CONTROL
4.1 Project Coordination Meetings
Meetings of key project personnel are necessary to assure a high degree of quality during
installation and to promote clear, open channels of communication. Therefore, Project
Coordination Meetings are an essential element in the success of the project. Several
types of Project Coordination Meetings are described below, including: (i) pre-
construction meetings; (ii) progress meetings; and (iii) problem or work deficiency
meetings.
4.1.1 Pre-Construction Meeting
A Pre-Construction Meeting will be held at the site
At a minimum, the Pre-Construction Meeting wi1
Geosynthetic Installer's Superintendent, the A
Manager.
Specific items for discussion at the Pre-
•
ing include the following:
• · hnkal Specifications;
•
• lines
•
• protocols for testing;
• protocols for handling deficiencies, repairs, and re-testing;
• the time schedule for all operations;
• procedures for packaging and storing archive samples;
• panel layout and numbering systems for panels and seams;
• seaming procedures;
• repair procedures; and
• soil stockpiling locations.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-Ol.d 13 August l017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
The Construction Manager will conduct a site tour to observe the current site conditions
and to review construction material and equipment storage locations. A person in
attendance at the meeting will be appointed by the Construction Manager to record the
discussions and decisions of the meeting in the form of meeting minutes. Copies of the
meeting minutes will be distributed to all attendees.
4.1.2 Progress Meetings
Progress meetings will be held between the CQA Site Manager, the Contractor,
Construction Manager, and other concerned parties participa ing in the construction of
the project. This meeting will include discussions on the c nt progress of the project,
planned activities for the next week, and revisions to 0 ·k plan or schedule. The
meeting will be documented in meeting minutes pre -·ed by ,erson designated by the
Construction Manager at the beginning of the me g. Within t : working days of the
meeting, draft minutes will be transmitted to r esenta es of parties in attendance for
review and comment. Corrections or comments clraft minutes shall be made within
two working days of receipt of the dr :' mtes to e · ncorporated in the final meeting
minutes.
4.1.3
• define and discuss the problem or deficiency;
• review alternative solutions;
• select a suitable solution agreeable to all parties; and
• implement an action plan to resolve the problem or deficiency.
The Construction Manager will appoint one attendee to record the discussions and
decisions of the meeting. The meeting record will be documented in the form of meeting
minutes and copies will be distributed to all affected parties. A copy of the minutes will
be retained in facility records.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O l .d 14 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
5. DOCUMENTATION
5.1 Overview
An effective CQA Plan depends largely on recognition of all construction activities that
should be monitored and on assigning responsibilities for the monitoring of each activity.
This is most effectively accomplished and verified by the documentation of quality
assurance activities. The CQA Consultant will document that quality assurance
requirements have been addressed and satisfied.
The CQA Site Manager will provide the Construction Mana r with signed descriptive
remarks, data sheets, and logs to verify that monitoring ac · 'ties have been carried out.
The CQA Site Manager will also maintain, at the job sit , mplete file of Construction
Drawings and Technical Specifications, a CQA Plan eek test procedures, daily
logs, and other pertinent documents.
5.2 Daily Recordkeeping
daily field reports prepared by
m ni · ring logs and testing data sheets.
d to and reviewed by the Construction
entation of the observed activities during
e ay include monitoring logs and testing data
nd data sheets will include the following information:
• the d
•
• a summary of'locations where construction is occurring;
• equipment and personnel on the project;
• a summary of meetings held and attendees;
• a description of materials used and references of results of testing and
documentation;
• identification of deficient work and materials;
• results of re-testing corrected "deficient work;"
• an identifying sheet number for cross referencing and document control;
• descriptions and locations of construction monitored;
SC0634,CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-OJ d 15 August 1017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
5.3
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
• type of construction and monitoring performed;
• description of construction procedures and procedures used to evaluate
construction;
• a summary of test data and results;
• calibrations or re-calibrations of test equipment and actions taken as a result
of re-calibration;
• decisions made regarding acceptance of units of work or corrective actions to
be taken in instances of substandard testing results;
• a discussion of agreements made between the in sted parties which may
affect the work; and
• signature of the respective CQA Site Mana
Construction Problems and Resolution ,
reports prepared by the CQA Site Man,
will be cross-referenced with daily. 1eld
e submitted with the daily field
special construction situations,
e s, spe ific observation logs, and testing
data sheets and will include tb ol ormation where available:
• ross-referencing and document control;
• e situation or deficiency;
• able cause of the situation or deficiency;
• ituation or deficiency was found or located;
• documentation of the response to the situation or deficiency;
• final results of responses;
• measures taken to prevent a similar situation from occurring in the future; and
• signature of the CQA Site Manager and a signature indicating concurrence by
the Construction Manager.
The Construction Manager will be made aware of significant recurring nonconformance
with the Construction Drawings, Technical Specifications, or CQA Plan. The cause of
the nonconformance will be determined and appropriate changes in procedures or
specifications will be recommended. These changes will be submitted to the Construction
Manager for approval. When this type of evaluation 1s made, the results will be
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O I .d 16 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
documented and any revision to procedures or specifications will be approved by the
Contractor and Design Engineer.
A summary of supporting data sheets, along with final testing results and the CQA
Engineer's approval of the work, will be required upon completion of construction.
5.4 Photographic Documentation
Photographs will be taken and documented in order to serve as a pictorial record of work
progress, problems, and mitigation activities. These records will be presented to the
Construction Manager upon completion of the project. P 1 tographic reporting data
sheets, where used, will be cross-referenced with observati0 nd testing data sheet(s), or
Construction Problem and Resolution Data Sheet(s).
5.5 Design or Specifications Changes
Design or specifications changes may be required
CQA Site Manager will notify the Desi
5.6 COA Report
·, g construction. In such cases, the
ign or specification changes will
._,._, ......... Ner and will take the form of an
e CQA Consultant will submit to the Owner a CQA
rofe ional Engineer licensed in the State of Utah. The
:knowledg · i) that the work has been performed in compliance with
the Construction Dr.. ti Technical Specifications; (ii) physical sampling and
testing has been cond e t the appropriate frequencies; and (iii) that the summary
document provides the necessary supporting information. At a minimum, this report will
include:
• MQC documentation;
• a summary report describing the CQA activities and indicating compliance
with the Construction Drawings and Technical Specifications which is signed
and sealed by the CQA Engineer;
• a summary of CQA/CQC testing, including failures, corrective measures, and
retest results;
• Contractor and Installer personnel resumes and qualifications as necessary;
SC0634.CQAP/an5A 20190530,Rev-OJ,d 17 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec e>
consultants
• documentation that the geomembrane trial seams were performed in
accordance with the CQA Plan and Technical Specifications;
• documentation that field seams were non-destructively tested using a method
in accordance with the applicable test standards;
• documentation that nondestructive testing was monitored by the CQA Site
Manager, that the CQA Site Manager informed the Geosynthetic Installer of
any required repairs, and that the CQA Site Manager monitored the seaming
and patching operations for uniformity and completeness;
• records of sample locations, the name of the individual conducting the tests,
and the results of tests;
• Record Drawings as provided by the Surve);; ·
• daily field reports.
SC0634,CQAP/an5A.20190530,Rev-O J ,d 18 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
6. WELL ABANDONMENT
6.1 Introduction
This section of the CQA Plan outlines the CQA activities to be performed for well
abandonment. The CQA Site Manager will review and become familiar with the
Construction Documents and any approved addenda or changes that pertain to work
completed under this section.
The CQA Site Manager will monitor well abandonment operations. The CQA Engineer
will review the contractor's submittals pertaining to CQA and P.rovide recommendations
to the Design Engineer. Monitored abandonment activitie 1 1 be documented, as will
deviations from the Construction Drawings and the Te· i ,a Spec~flcalions. Any non-
conformance identified by the CQA Site Manager wi · ed to the Construction
Manager.
6.2 COA Monitoring Activities
6.2.1 Materials
set forth in Section 02070 o
The wells to be , e · nd1ooted on the Drawings. Well abandonment shall be
observed by the anager. Observed well abandonment activities shall be
documented in daily ft ld r · its. The CQA Site Manager shall keep a detailed log for
the abandoned well, inc <!ling drilling procedure, total depth of abandonment, depth to
groundwater (if applicable), final depth of boring, and well destruction details, including
the depth of placement and quantities of all well abandonment materials.
6.2.3 Deficiencies
If a defect is discovered in the well abandonment, the CQA Site Manager will evaluate
the extent and nature of the defect. The CQA Consultant will determine the extent of the
deficient area by observations, a review of records, or other means that the CQA
Consultant deems appropriate.
6.2.4 Notification
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01 .d 19 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
After observing a defect, the CQA Consultant will notify the Construction Manager and
schedule appropriate re-evaluation after the work deficiency is corrected by the
Contractor.
6.2.5 Repairs and Re-testing
The Contractor will correct the deficiency to the satisfaction of the CQA Consultant. If
a project specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual weather conditions hinder
work, then the CQA Consultant will develop and present to the Design Engineer
suggested solutions for approval.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 20 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
7. EARTHWORK
7.1 Introduction
This section prescribes the CQA activities to be performed to monitor that earthwork is
constructed in accordance with Construction Drawings and Technical Specifications.
The earthwork construction procedures to be monitored by the CQA Site Manager, if
required, shall include:
• vegetation removal;
• subgrade preparation;
• engineered fill placement, moisture conditio
• anchor trench excavation and backfill.
7.2 Earthwork Testing Activities
· 11 be performed for material
prior to construction.
the Design Engine .
~'~~:h. ""LJ;!-ess the test methods are updated or revised
to the test methods will be reviewed and approved by
Q nsultant prior to their usage.
7.2.1
The frequency of e soil testing for material qualification and material
conformance will conform to the minimum frequencies presented in Table lA. The
frequency of soil testing shall conform to the minimum frequencies presented in
Table lB. The actual frequency of testing required will be increased by the CQA Site
Manager, as necessary, if variability of materials is noted at the site, during adverse
conditions, or to isolate failing areas of the construction.
7.2.2 Sample Selection
Sampling locations will be selected by the CQA Site Manager. Conformance samples
will be obtained from borrow pits or stockpiles of material. The Contractor must plan the
work and make soil available for sampling in a timely and organized manner so that the
test results can be obtained before the material is installed. The CQA Site Manager must
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O l .d 21 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
document sample locations so that failing areas can be immediately isolated. The CQA
Site Manager will follow standard sampling procedures to obtain representative samples
of the proposed soil materials.
7.3 COA Monitoring Activities
7.3.1 Vegetation Removal
The CQA Site Manager will monitor and document that vegetation is sufficiently cleared
and grubbed in areas where engineered fill is to be placed. Vegetation removal shall be
performed as described in the Technical Specifications and th -Construction Drawings.
7.3.2 Topsoil Removal
The CQA Site Manager will monitor and docum
in areas where engineered fill is to be placed.
described in the Technical Specifications and the
7.3.3 Engineered Fill
compaction to confirm it i
Specifications and the
a minimum, that:
• the ·
i!J monitor engineered fill placement and
e requirements specified in the Technical
·. The CQA Site Manager will monitor, at
firee of debris and other undesirable materials and that
r than 6-inches in longest dimension;
• the fill is co structed to the lines and grades shown on the Construction
Drawings; and
• fill compaction requirements are met as specified m the Technical
Specifications.
7.3.4 Subgrade Soil
During construction, the CQA Site Manager will monitor the subgrade soil placement
and compaction methods are consistent with the requirements specified in the Technical
Specifications and the Construction Drawings. The CQA Site Manager will monitor, at
a minimum, that:
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 22 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
• the subgrade soil is free of protrusions larger than Q;::/-0.5-inches (Rev-01) and
particles are to be no larger than 3-inches in longest dimension;
• the subgrade soil is constructed to the lines and grades shown on the
Construction Drawings; and
• compaction requirements are met as specified in the Technical Specifications.
7.3.5 Fine Grading
The CQA Site Manager shall monitor and document that site re-grading performed meets
the requirements of the Technical Specifications and the Construction Drawings. At a
minimum, the CQA Site Manager shall monitor that:
• the subgrade surface is free of sharp roe
materials;
• the subgrade surface is smooth and
• the subgrade surface meets the lines
Drawings.
7.3.6
During construction, the C
and backfill methods are
a minimum, that:
• ·ree of debris and other undesirable materials;
• is constructed to the lines and grades shown on the
Construction Drawings; and
• compaction requirements are met, through visual observations, as specified in
the Technical Specifications.
7 .4 Deficiencies
If a defect is discovered in the earthwork product, the CQA Site Manager will
immediately determine the extent and nature of the defect. If the defect is indicated by
an unsatisfactory test result, the CQA Consultant will determine the extent of the
defective area by additional tests, observations, a review of records, or other means that
the CQA Consultant deems appropriate. If the defect is related to adverse site conditions,
SC0634.CQAP/an5A,20190530,Rev-O l .d 23 ,4..ugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
such as overly wet soils or non-conforming particle sizes, the CQA Site Manager will
define the limits and nature of the defect.
7.4.1 Notification
After evaluating the extent and nature of a defect, the CQA Consultant will notify the
Construction Manager and Contractor and schedule appropriate re-evaluation when the
work deficiency is to be corrected.
7.4.2 Repairs and Re-Testing
The Contractor will correct deficiencies to the satisfaction .
project specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual
then the CQA Consultant will develop and present tot
solutions for his approval.
er conditions hinder work,
tion Manager suggested
Re-evaluations by the CQA Site Manager shal ·, 1 ·· ue until it is verified that defects
have been corrected before any additional ork is pe fo-med by the Contractor in the area
of the deficiency.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 24 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
8. DRAINAGE AGGREGATE
8.1 Introduction
This section prescribes the CQA activities to be performed to monitor that drainage
aggregates are constructed in accordance with Construction Drawings and Technical
Specifications. The drainage aggregates construction procedures to be monitored by the
CQA Site Manager include drainage aggregate placement.
8.2 Testing Activities
Aggregate testing will be performed for material quaJ ificati , 1d material conformance.
These two stages of testing are defined as follows:
•
•
Construction Manager and to
perform the confor ·
prior to their usage.
8.2.1 Sample Frequency
valuate the conformance of a
to the Technical
The frequency of aggregate testing for material qualification and material conformance
will conform to the minimum frequencies presented in Table 2A. The frequency of
aggregate testing shall conform to the minimum frequencies presented in Table 2B. The
actual frequency of testing required will be increased by the CQA Site Manager, as
necessary, if variability of materials is noted at the site, during adverse conditions, or to
isolate failing areas of the construction.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01.d 25 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geo syn.tee D
consultants
8.2.2 Sample Selection
With the exception of qualification samples, sampling locations will be selected by the
CQA Site Manager. Conformance samples will be obtained from borrow pits or
stockpiles of material. The Contractor must plan the work and make aggregate available
for sampling in a timely and organized manner so that the test results can be obtained
before the material is installed. The CQA Site Manager must document sample locations
so that failing areas can be immediately isolated. The CQA Site Manager will follow
standard sampling procedures to obtain representative samples of the proposed aggregate
materials.
8.3 COA Monitoring Activities
8.3.1 Drainage Aggregate
• reviewing documentation of th
the Contractor;
• of the materials to the Technical
• he rainage aggregates are installed using the specified
equi
• e drainage aggregates are constructed to the lines and
e Construction Drawings; and
• monitoring that the construction activities do not cause damage to underlying
geosynthetic materials.
8.4 Deficiencies
If a defect is discovered in the drainage aggregates, the CQA Site Manager will evaluate
the extent and nature of the defect. If the defect is indicated by an unsatisfactory test
result, the CQA Consultant will determine the extent of the deficient area by additional
tests, observations, a review of records, or other means that the CQA Consultant deems
appropriate.
SC0634_CQAP/an5A.20190530-Rev-0 l.d hugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
8.4.1 Notification
After evaluating the extent and nature of a defect, the CQA Consultant will notify the
Construction Manager and Contractor and schedule appropriate re-tests when the work
deficiency is to be corrected.
8.4.2 Repairs and Re-testing
The Contractor will correct the deficiency to the satisfaction of the CQA Consultant. If
a project specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual weather conditions hinder
work, then the CQA Consultant will develop and present to the Construction Manager
suggested solutions for approval.
until it is verified that
the defect has been corrected before any addition
in the area of the deficiency. The CQA Site ager
requirements are met and that submittals are pro tlecl.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O 1.d 27 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
9.
9.1
Geosyntec <>
consultants
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) PIPE AND STRIP COMPOSITE
Material Requirements
PVC pipe, fittings, and strip composite must conform to the requirements of the Technical
Specifications. The CQA Consultant will document that the PVC pipe, fittings, and (Rev-
01) strip composite, and sandbags (Rev-01) meet those requirements.
9.2 Manufacturer
9.2.1 Submittals
Prior to the installation of PVC pipe and strip com posit
to the CQA Consultant:
• a properties' sheet including, at am·
using test methods indicated in the
and
The CQA Consultant will document that:
• the property v
Specifications; , ci
the Manufacturer meet the Technical
o . Q erties by the Manufacturer are properly documented
tho sed are acceptable.
9.3 Testing ActJV,i~~
Aggregate testing will Be, g,l}rfonned for material qualification and material conformance.
These two stages of testing are defined as follows:
• Material qualification tests are used to evaluate the conformance of a proposed
sand source with the Technical Specification. for qualification of the ow-ce
prior to con truction.
• Sand conformance testing is used to evaluate the conformance of a particuJar
batch of sand from a qualified source to the Technical Specifications prior to
filling and placement of the sand bags.
The Contractor will be responsible for submitting material qualification test results to the
Construction Manager and to the CQA Consultant for review. The CQA Laboratory will
perform the conformance testing aed CQC testing. Sand testing will be conducted in
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ.d 28 August 1017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
accordance with the current versions of the corresponding ASTM test procedures. The
test methods indicated in Tables 2A and 2B are those that will be used fo r this testing
unless the test metl ods are updated or revised prior to construction. Revisions to the test
methods will be reviewed and approved by the Design Engineer and the CQA Consultant
prior to their usage. (Rev-01)
9.4 Handling and Laying
Care will be taken during transportation of the pipe such that it will not be cut, kinked, or
otherwise damaged. Ropes, fabric, or rubber-protected slings and straps will be used
when handling pipes. Chains, cables, or hooks inserted into 1e pipe ends will not be
used. Two slings spread apart will be used for lifting each n th of pipe. Pipe or fittings
will not be dropped onto rocky or unprepared ground.
9.5 Perforations
The CQA Site Manager sha 1
conform to the
Specifications.
9.6 Joints
o · or 1d document that the perforations of the PVC pipe
f the Construction Drawings and the Technical
The CQA Monitor shall monitor and document that pipe and fittings are joined by the
methods indicated in the Technical Specifications.
9.7 Strip Composite
The CQA Site Monitor shall monitor and document that the strip composite and sandbags
meet and are installed in accordance with the requirements outlined on the drawings and in
the Technical Specifications.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A,20190530.Rev-0 l .d 29 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
10. GEOMEMBRANE
10.1 General
This section discusses and outlines the CQA activities to be performed for high density
polyethylene (HDPE) smooth, textured, and Drain Liner™ geomembrane installation.
The CQA Site Manager will review the Construction Drawings, Technical Specifications,
and any approved Addenda regarding this material.
10.2 Geomembrane Material Conformance
10.2.1 Introduction
• review the manufacturer's
Specifications;
•
• ·oils before the geomembrane is installed .
geomembrane.
10.2.2.1
The Manufacturer will provide the Construction Manager and the CQA Consultant with
the following:
• property data sheets, including, at a mm1mum, all specified properties,
measured using test methods indicated in the Technical Specifications, or
equivalent; and
• sampling procedures and results of testing.
The CQA Consultant will document that:
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O J ,d 30 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
• the property values certified by the Manufacturer meet all of the requirements
of the Technical Specifications; and
• the measurements of properties by the Manufacturer are properly documented
and that the test methods used are acceptable.
10.2.2.2 Geomembrane Roll MQC Certification
Prior to shipment, the Manufacturer will provide the Construction Manager and the CQA
Consultant with MQC certificates for every roll of geomembrane provided. The MQC
certificates will be signed by a responsible party employed by the Geomembrane
Manufacturer, such as the production manager. The MQC ce Ii.cate shall include:
• roll numbers and identification; and
•
•
•
10.2.3 Conformance Testing
a e en rovided at the specified frequency, and that
the rolls related to the roll represented by the test
cates and monitor that the certified roll properties meet
The CQA Consultant shall obtain conformance samples (at the manufacturing facility or
site) at the specified frequency and forward them to the Geosynthetics CQA Laboratory
for testing to monitor conformance to both the Technical Specifications and the list of
properties certified by the Manufacturer. The test procedures will be as indicated in
Table 3. Where optional procedures are noted in the test method, the requirements of the
Technical Specifications will prevail.
Samples will be taken across the width of the roll and will not include the first linear
3 feet of material. Unless otherwise specified, samples will be 3 feet long by the roll
width. The CQA Consultant will mark the machine direction on the samples with an
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O l .d 31 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
arrow along with the date and roll number. The required minimum sampling frequencies
are provided in Table 3.
The CQA Consultant will examine results from laboratory conformance testing and will
report any non-conformance to the Construction Manager and the Geosynthetic Installer.
The procedures prescribed in the Technical Specifications will be followed in the event
of a failing conformance test.
10.3 Delivery
10.3.1 Transportation and Handling
The CQA Consultant will document that the transportaf0 handling does not pose a
risk of damage to the geomembrane.
Upon delivery of the rolls of geomembrane,
the rolls are unloaded and stored on site as re
Damage caused by unloading will be doc ented ,
damaged material shall not be installed.
10.3.2 Storage
· ,e Manager will document that
y the Technical Specifications.
the CQA Site Manager and the
storage of the geomembrane provides
10.4 Geomembrane Installation
10.4.1 Introduction
The CQA Site Manager will document that the geomembrane installation is carried out
in accordance with the Construction Drawings, Technical Specifications, and
Manufacturer's recommendations.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-0 J .d 32 August 21117 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
10.4.2 Earthwork
10.4.2.1 Surface Preparation
The CQA Site Manager will document that:
• the prepared subgrade meets the requirements of the Technical Specifications
and has been approved; and
• placement of the overlying materials does not damage, create large wrinkles,
or induce excessive tensile stress in any underlying geosynthetic materials.
The Geosynthetic Installer will certify in writing th e surface on which the
geosynthetics will be installed is acceptable. The Certi o te cceptance as presented
in the Technical Specifications, will be signed by th eosynth 1 nstaUer and given to
the CQA Site Manager prior to commencemerr geos 1thetics 1 , tallation in the area
under consideration.
Installer, it will be the
monitor and document tha
begins.
At any time befo
indicate to the Co
the geomembrane.
· 1e g 0 1embrane installation, the CQA Site Manager will
, ager locations that may not provide adequate support to
10.4.2.2 Geosynthetic Termination
The CQA Site Manager will document that the geosynthetic terminations (Anchor Trench)
have been constructed in accordance with the Construction Drawings. Backfilling above the
terminations will be conducted in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
10.4.3 Geomembrane Placement
10.4.3.1 Panel Identification
A field panel is the unit area of geomembrane which is to be seamed in the field, i.e., a
field panel is a roll or a portion of roll cut in the field. It will be the responsibility of the
SC0634.CQAP/an5A 20190530,Rev-Ol d 33 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
CQA Site Manager to document that each field panel is given an "identification code"
(number or letter-number) consistent with the Panel Layout Drawing. This identification
code will be agreed upon by the Construction Manager, Geosynthetic Installer and CQA
Site Manager. This field panel identification code will be as simple and logical as
possible. Roll numbers established in the manufacturing plant must be traceable to the
field panel identification code.
The CQA Site Manager will establish documentation showing correspondence between
roll numbers and field panel identification codes. The field panel identification code will
be used for all CQA records.
10.4.3.2 Field Panel Placement
Location
The CQA Site Manager will document that e d p ·
indicated in the Geosynthetic Installer's Panel Lay
by the Construction Manager.
Installation Schedule
Field panels may be instaJ
• ls are pl ced one at a time and each field panel is seamed after its
placemen ·11 or to minimize the number ofunseamed field panels exposed
to wind); an
• any combination of the above.
If a decision is reached to place all field panels prior to field seaming, it is usually
beneficial to begin at the high point area and proceed toward the low point with "shingle"
overlaps to facilitate drainage in the event of precipitation. It is also usually beneficial to
proceed in the direction of prevailing winds. Accordingly, an early decision regarding
installation scheduling should be made if and only if weather conditions can be predicted
with reasonable certainty. Otherwise, scheduling decisions must be made during
installation, in accordance with varying conditions. In any event, the Geosynthetic
Installer is fully responsible for the decision made regarding placement procedures.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01.d 34 August 21117 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec «>
consultants
The CQA Site Manager will evaluate every change in the schedule proposed by the
Geosynthetic Installer and advise the Construction Manager on the acceptability of that
change. The CQA Site Manager will document that the condition of the subgrade soil
has not changed detrimentally during installation.
The CQA Site Manager will record the identification code, location, and date of
installation of each field panel.
Weather Conditions
Geomembrane placement will not proceed unless otherwise a
temperature is below 32°F or above 122°F. In addition,
be monitored for potential impact to geosynthetic inst lt no
will not be performed during any precipitation, in
(e.g., fog, dew), or in an area of ponded water.
The CQA Site Manager will document that
Additionally, the CQA Site Manager ·r do
damaged by weather conditions.
Construction Manager if the abov condit
Method of Placement
•
orized when the ambient
speeds and direction will
Geomembrane placement
of excessive moisture
• the surface u d dying the geomembrane has not deteriorated since previous
acceptance, and is still acceptable immediately prior to geomembrane
placement;
• geosynthetics are oriented m accordance with the requirements of the
Technical Specifications;
• excessive dust and/or dirt is not within the Drain Liner™ studs which could
result in clogging and/or damage to the adjacent materials;
• geosynthetic elements immediately underlying the geomembrane are clean
and free of debris;
• personnel working on the geomembrane do not smoke, wear damaging shoes,
or engage in other activities which could damage the geomembrane;
SC0634,CQAP/an5A,20190530.Rev-01.d 35 August 2917 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
• the method used to unroll the panels does not cause scratches or crimps in the
geomembrane and does not damage the supporting soil;
• the method used to place the panels minimizes wrinkles ( especially
differential wrinkles between adjacent panels); and
• adequate temporary loading or anchoring (e.g., sand bags, tires), not likely to
damage the geomembrane, has been placed to prevent uplift by wind (in case
of high winds, continuous loading, e.g., by adjacent sand bags, is
recommended along edges of panels to minimize risk of wind flow under the
panels).
The CQA Site Manager will inform the Construction Managyr 1fthe above conditions are
not fulfilled.
10.4.4 Field Seaming
and tested in accordance w·
10.4.4.1
experienced seamer,
experienced seamers.
· ster seamer", will provide direct supervision over less
The Geosynthetic Installer will provide the Construction Manager and the CQA
Consultant with a list of proposed seaming personnel and their experience records. These
documents will be reviewed by the Construction Manager and the Geosynthetics CQA
Consultant.
10.4.4.2 Seaming Equipment and Products
Approved processes for field seaming are fillet extrusion welding and double-track fusion
welding.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530,Rev-OJ.d 36 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
Fillet Extrusion Process
The fillet extrusion-welding apparatus will be equipped with gauges giving the
temperature in the apparatus.
The Geosynthetic Installer will provide documentation regarding the extrusion welding
rod to the CQA Site Manager, and will certify that the extrusion welding rod is compatible
with the Technical Specification, and in any event, is comprised of the same resin as the
geomembrane.
The CQA Site Manager will log apparatus temperatures, atft)bient temperatures, and
geomembrane surface temperatures at appropriate interval .
The CQA Site Manager will document that:
• the Geosynthetic Installer maintain
seaming apparatus decided at the Pre-
• nage the geomembrane;
• the extruder is purge
extrudate has bee
•
•
all heat-degraded
a smooth base such that no damage occurs
· fabric is placed beneath the hot welding apparatus
• 1 protected from damage in heavily trafficked areas .
Fusion Process
The fusion-welding apparatus must be automated vehicular-mounted devices. The
fusion-welding apparatus will be equipped with gauges giving the applicable
temperatures and pressures.
The CQA Site Manager will log ambient, seaming apparatus, and geomembrane surface
temperatures as well as seaming apparatus speeds.
The CQA Site Manager will also document that:
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O 1.d 37 August :2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
• the Geosynthetic Installer maintains on site the number of spare operable
seaming apparatus decided at the Pre-construction Meeting;
• equipment used for seaming is not likely to damage the geomembrane;
• for cross seams, the edge of the cross seam is ground to a smooth incline (top
and bottom) prior to welding;
• the electric generator is placed on a smooth cushioning base such that no
damage occurs to the geomembrane from ground pressure or fuel leaks;
• a smooth insulating plate or fabric is placed beneath the hot welding apparatus
after usage; and
• the geomembrane is protected from damage in Heavily trafficked areas.
10.4.4.3 Seam Preparation
The CQA Site Manager will document that:
• prior to seaming, the seam
and foreign material;
•
•
•
10.4.4.4
e of moisture, dust, dirt, debris,
ess; and
the fewest possible number of wrinkles and
The normally required weather conditions for seaming are as follows unless authorized
in writing by the Design Engineer:
• seaming will only be approved between ambient temperatures of 32°F and
122°F.
If the Geosynthetic Installer wishes to use methods that may allow seaming at ambient
temperatures below 32°F or above 122°F, the Geosynthetic Installer will demonstrate and
certify that such methods produce seams which are entirely equivalent to seams produced
within acceptable temperature, and that the overall quality of the geomembrane is not
adversely affected.
SC0634 CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01 d 38 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
The CQA Site Manager will document that these seaming conditions are fulfilled and will
advise the Geosynthetics Installer if they are not.
10.4.4.5 Overlapping and Temporary Bonding
The CQA Site Manager will document that:
• the panels of geomembrane have a finished overlap of a minimum of 3 inches
for both extrusion and fusion welding;
• no solvent or adhesive bonding materials are used; and
• the procedures utilized to temporarily bond ad· ·. t panels together does not
damage the geomembrane.
The CQA Site Manager will log appropriate tem
and report non-compliances to the Con tructio
10.4.4.6 Trial Seams
, 'tions, and will log
Separate trial seam
trial seams.
be maintained for fusion welded and extrusion welded
10.4.4. 7 General Seaming Procedure
Unless otherwise specified, the general production seaming procedure used by the
Geosynthetic Installer will be as follows:
• fusion-welded seams are continuous, commencing at one end to the seam and
ending at the opposite end;
• cleaning, overlap, and shingling requirements shall be maintained;
• if seaming operations are carried out at night, adequate illumination will be
provided at the Geosynthetic Installer's expense; and
SC0634 CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-OJ.d 39 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
• seaming will extend to the outside edge of panels to be placed in the anchor
trench.
The CQA Site Manager shall document geomembrane seaming operations on seaming
logs. Seaming logs shall include, at a minimum:
• seam identifications (typically associated with panels being joined);
• seam starting time and date;
• seam ending time and date;
• seam length;
• identification of person performing seam;
• identification of seaming equipment.
Separate logs shall be maintained for fusion an ·u
CQA Site Manager shall monitor during seaming ·
•
• cleaning, overl uirements are maintained.
10.4.4.8
Concept
i I non-destructively test field seams over their length using
a vacuum test unit, air p esslU'e test (for double fusion seams only), or other method
approved by the Construction Manager. The purpose of nondestructive tests is to check
the continuity of seams. It does not provide information on seam strength. Continuity
testing will be carried out as the seaming work progresses, not at the completion of field
seammg.
The CQA Site Manager will:
• observe continuity testing;
• record location, date, name of person conducting the test, and the results of
tests; and
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20 I 90530.Rev-0 I .d 40 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec e>
consultants
• inform the Geosynthetic Installer of required repairs.
The Geosynthetic Installer will complete any required repairs m accordance with
Section 10.4.5.
The CQA Site Manager will:
• observe the repair and re-testing of the repair;
• mark on the geomembrane that the repair has been made; and
• document the results.
The following procedures will
destructively tested:
All such seams will be cap-stripped with the s
• If the seam is accessible to
seam will be non-destructive
•
The
Vacuum Testing
t prior to final installation, the
mal installation.
Vacuum testing shall be performed utilizing the equipment and procedures specified in
the Technical Specifications. The CQA Site Manager shall observe the vacuum testing
procedures and document that they are performed in accordance with the Technical
Specifications. The result of vacuum testing shall be recorded on the CQA seaming logs.
Results shall include, at a minimum, the personnel performing the vacuum test and the
result of the test (pass or fail), and the test date. Seams failing the vacuum test shall be
repaired in accordance with the procedures listed in the Technical Specifications. The
CQA Site Manager shall document seam repairs in the seaming logs.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O l .d 41 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Air Pressure Testing
Air channel pressure testing shall be performed on double-track seams created with a
fusion welding device, utilizing the equipment and procedures specified in the Technical
Specifications. The CQA Site Manager shall observe the air pressure testing procedures
and document that they are performed in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
The result of air channel pressure testing shall be recorded on the CQA seaming logs.
Results shall include, at a minimum, personnel performing the air pressure test, the
starting air pressure and time, the final air pressure and time, the drop in psi during the
test, and the result of the test (pass or fail). Seams failing the air pressure test shall be
repaired in accordance with the procedures listed in the Tee . .ical Specifications. The
CQA Site Manager shall document seam repairs in the se · g logs.
10.4.4.9 Destructive Testing
Concept
Destructive seam testing will be perfom
in accordance with the Construction
The CQA Site
laboratory testing.
• The frequency of geomembrane seam testing is a minimum of one destructive
sample per 500 feet of weld. If after a total of 50 samples have been tested
and no more than one sample has failed, the frequency can be increased to one
per 1,000 feet.
• A minimum of one test per seaming machine over the duration of the project.
• Additional test locations may be selected during seaming at the CQA Site
Manager's discretion. Selection of such locations may be prompted by
suspicion of excess crystallinity, contamination, offset welds, or any other
potential cause of imperfect welding.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O 1 .d 42 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
The Geosynthetic Installer will not be informed in advance of the locations where the
seam samples will be taken.
Sampling Procedure
Samples will be marked by the CQA Site Manager following the procedures listed in the
Technical Specifications. Preliminary samples will be taken from either side of the
marked sample and tested before obtaining the full sample per the requirements of the
Technical Specifications. Samples shall be obtained by the Geosynthetic Installer.
Samples shall be obtained as the seaming progresses in order to have laboratory test
results before the geomembrane is covered by another material The CQA Site Manager
will:
•
• assign a number to each sample, au
•
• record reason for taking the
suspicious feature of the ge01
ucti ve seam sampling will be immediately
The destructive samp -w.·n 0 2 inches (0.3 meters) wide by 42 inches (1.1 meters) long
with the seam centered I wise. The sample will be cut into three parts and distributed
as follows:
• one portion, measuring 12 inches by 12 inches (30 centimeters (cm) by
30 cm), to the Geosynthetic Installer for field testing;
• one portion, measuring 12 inches by 18 inches (30 cm by 45 cm), for CQA
Laboratory testing; and
• one portion, measuring 12 inches by 12 inches (30 cm by 30 cm), to the
Construction Manager for archive storage.
Final evaluation of the destructive sample sizes and distribution will be made at the Pre-
Construction Meeting.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 43 . August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geo syn tee 0
consultants
Field Testing
Field testing will be performed by the Geosynthetic Installer using a gauged tensiometer.
Prior to field testing the Geosynthetic Installer shall submit a calibration certificate for
gauge tensiometer to the CQA Consultant for review. Calibration must have been
performed within one year of use on the current project. The destructive sample shall be
tested according to the requirements of the Technical Specifications. The specimens shall
not fail in the seam and shall meet the strength requirements outlined in the Technical
Specifications. If any field test specimen fails, then the procedures outlined in Procedures
for Destructive Test Failures of this section will be followed.
The CQA Site Manager will witness field tests and ma·
number. The CQA Site Manager will also doc ent
temperature, number of seaming unit, name of s · er welding ~
and pressures, and pass or fail description.
CQA Laboratory Testing
Destructive test samples
responsibility of the CQA Site : n
The Construction Manage ill be
procedure will be outlined a
CQA Laboratory. Th
concurrence of th
and time, ambient
atus temperatures
Testing will inclu Seam Strength" and "Peel Adhesion." The minimum
acceptable values to be · ed in these tests are given in the Technical Specifications.
At least five specimens w1ll be tested for each test method. Specimens will be selected
alternately, by test, from the samples (i.e., peel, shear, peel, shear, and so on). A passing
test will meet the minimum required values in at least four out of five specimens.
The CQA Laboratory will provide test results no more than 24 hours after they receive
the samples. The CQA Consultant will review laboratory test results as soon as they
become available, and make appropriate recommendations to the Construction Manager.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-0 l .d 44 ,'..ugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geo syn tee t>
consultants
Geosynthetic Installer's Laboratory Testing
The Geosynthetic Installer's laboratory test results will be presented to the Construction
Manager and the CQA Consultant for comments.
Procedures for Destructive Test Failure
The following procedures will apply whenever a sample fails a destructive test, whether
that test conducted by the CQA Laboratory, the Geosynthetic Installer's laboratory, or by
gauged tensiometer in the field. The Geosynthetic Installer has two options:
• The Geosynthetic Installer can reconstruct the 1 between two passed test
locations .
•
failures.
10.4.5 Defects and Repairs
s · e test en the seam is reconstructed
'iJs then the process is repeated to
should be reconstructed.
locations from which samples passing
Repairs will be made in accordance with
urnent actions taken in conjunction with destructive test
This section prescribes CQA activities to document that defects, tears, rips, punctures,
damage, or failing seams shall be repaired.
10.4.5.1 Identification
Seams and non-seam areas of the geomembrane shall be examined by the CQA Site
Manager for identification of defects, holes, blisters, undispersed raw materials and signs
of contamination by foreign matter. Because light reflected by the geomembrane helps
to detect defects, the surface of the geomembrane shall be clean at the time of
examination.
SC0634,CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ.d 45 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec l>
consultants
10.4.5.2 Evaluation
Potentially flawed locations, both in seam and non-seam areas, shall be non-destructively
tested using the methods described in Section 10.4.4.8 as appropriate. Each location that
fails the nondestructive testing will be marked by the CQA Site Manager and repaired by
the Geosynthetic Installer. Work will not proceed with any materials that will cover
locations which have been repaired until laboratory test results with passing values are
available.
10.4. 5.3 Repair Procedures
Portions of the geomembrane exhibiting a flaw, or failin tructive or nondestructive
test, will be repaired. Several procedures exist for he repair these areas. The final
decision as to the appropriate repair procedure .'11 be at the · e etion of the CQA
Consultant with input from the Construction d Geosynthetic Installer. The
procedures available include:
•
•
•
• capp
•
ge lengths of failed seams; and
and replacing with a strip of new material welded into
rge lengths of fusion seams).
In addition, the following provisions will be satisfied:
• surfaces of the geomembrane which are to be repaired will be abraded no more
than 20 minutes prior to the repair;
• surfaces must be clean and dry at the time of the repair;
• all seaming equipment used in repairing procedures must be approved;
• the repair procedures, materials, and techniques will be approved in advance
by the CQA Consultant with input from the Design Engineer and Geosynthetic
Installer;
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-OJ.d 46 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
• patches or caps will extend at least 6 inches (150 millimeters (mm)) beyond
the edge of the defect, and all corners of patches will be rounded with a radius
of at least 3 inches (75 mm);
• cuts and holes to be patched shall have rounded comers; and
• the geomembrane below large caps should be appropriately cut to avoid water
or gas collection between the two sheets.
10.4.5.4 Verification of Repairs
The CQA Site Manager shall monitor and document repairs. ecords of repairs shall be
maintained on repair logs. Repair logs shall include, at a , t 'mum:
•
• approximate dimensions of repair;
• repair type, i.e. fusion weld or extrus1
• date of repair;
•
•
10.4.5.5 Large Wrinkles
.s m be of sufficient extent to require destructive test
of the Technical Specifications. Failed tests shall be
i 1g test results are observed.
When seaming of the geomembrane is completed ( or when seaming of a large area of the
geomembrane liner is completed) and prior to placing overlying materials, the CQA Site
Manager will observe the geomembrane wrinkles. The CQA Site Manager will indicate
to the Geosynthetic Installer which wrinkles should be cut and re-seamed. The seam thus
produced will be tested like any other seam.
10.4.6 Lining System Acceptance
The Geosynthetic Installer and the Manufacturer(s) will retain all responsibility for the
geosynthetic materials in the liner system until acceptance by the Construction Manager.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A,20190530,Rev-Ol.d 47 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
The geosynthetic liner system will be accepted by the Construction Manager when:
• the installation is finished;
• verification of the adequacy of all seams and repairs, including associated
testing, is complete;
• all documentation of installation is completed including the CQA Engineer's
acceptance report and appropriate warranties; and
• CQA report, including "as built" drawing(s), sealed by a registered
professional engineer has been received by the C T1ction Manager.
The CQA Site Manager will document that installation p oce
Technical Specifications for the project.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O l .d 48 }.ugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
11. GEOTEXTILE
11.1 Introduction
This section of the CQA Plan outlines the CQA activities to be performed for the
geotextile installation. The CQA Consultant will review the Construction Drawings, and
the Technical Specifications, and any approved addenda or changes.
11.2 Manufacturing
The Manufacturer will provide the Construction Manager
"minimum average roll value" properties ( defined as
deviations), for each type of geotextile to be delivered ,be Manufacturer will also
provide the Construction Manager with a written qu · contr© ertification signed by a
responsible party employed by the Manufacture lfat the mate · 1 actually delivered
have property "minimum average roll values" ch or excee all property values
guaranteed for that type of geotextile.
The quality control certificates will incl
•
•
The Manufacturer test results for the following:
•
•
• tear strength;
• puncture strength;
• permittivity; and
• apparent opening size.
MQC tests shall be performed at the frequency listed in the Technical Specifications.
CQA tests on geotextile produced for the project shall be performed according to the test
methods specified and frequencies presented in Table 4.
The CQA Consultant will examine Manufacturer certifications to evaluate that the
property values listed on the certifications meet or exceed those specified for the
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-Ol.d 49 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geo syn.tee C>
consultants
particular type of geotextile and the measurements of properties by the Manufacturer are
properly documented, test methods acceptable and the certificates have been provided at
the specified frequency properly identifying the rolls related to testing. Deviations will
be reported to the Construction Manager.
11.3 Labeling
The Manufacturer will identify all rolls of geotextile with the following:
• manufacturer's name;
• product identification;
• lot number;
• roll number; and
• roll dimensions .
·y and deviation from the above
11.4
Protective wrappings · emoved less than one hour prior to unrolling the geotextile.
After the wrapping has 15 en removed, a nonwoven geotextile will not be exposed to
sunlight for more than 15 days, except for UV protection geotextile, unless otherwise
specified and guaranteed by the Manufacturer.
The CQA Site Manager will observe rolls upon delivery at the site and deviation from the
above requirements will be reported to the Geosynthetic Installer.
11.5 Conformance Testing
11.5.1 Tests
The CQA Consultant will sample the geotextile either during production at the
manufacturing facility or after delivery to the construction site. The samples will be
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 50 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
forwarded to the Geosynthetics CQA Laboratory for testing to assess conformance with
the Technical Specifications. The test methods and minimum testing frequencies are
indicated in Table 4.
11.5.2 Sampling Procedures
Samples will be taken across the width of the roll and will not include the first 3 feet.
Unless otherwise specified, samples will be 3 feet long by the roll width. The CQA
Consultant will mark the machine direction on the samples with an arrow.
Unless otherwise specified, samples will be taken at a rate as indicated in Table 4 for
geotextiles.
11.5.3 Test Results
The CQA Consultant will examine results fron
report non-conformance with the Technical
Construction Manager.
11.5.4 Conformance Sample Failure
The following procedure wi ~ a pl y
conducted by the CQA La
•
• The Geo sy nstaller will remove conformance samples for testing by
the CQA Lab ratory from the closest numerical rolls on both sides of the
failed roll. These two samples must conform to the Technical Specifications.
If either of these samples fail, the numerically closest rolls on the side of the
failed sample will be tested by the CQA Laboratory. These samples must
conform to the Technical Specifications. If any of these samples fail, every
roll of geotextile on site from this lot and every subsequently delivered roll
that is from the same lot must be tested by the CQA Laboratory for
conformance to the Technical Specifications. This additional conformance
testing will be at the expense of the Manufacturer.
The CQA Site Manager will document actions taken in conjunction with conformance
test failures.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01 d 51 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
11.6 Handling and Placement
The Geosynthetic Installer will handle all geotextiles in such a manner as to document
they are not damaged in any way, and the following will be complied with:
• In the presence of wind, all geotextiles will be weighted with sandbags or the
equivalent. Such sandbags will be installed during placement and will remain
until replaced with earth cover material.
• Geotextiles will be cut using an approved geotextile cutter only. If in place,
special care must be taken to protect other m 1rials from damage, which
could be caused by the cutting of the geotexti
• recautions to prevent
, , textile .
•
Manager.
11.7
Geotextiles will be conti1 uous]y sewn. No horizontal seams will be allowed on side
slopes (i.e. seams will be along, not across, the slope), except as part of a patch.
Seams will be sewn using polymeric thread with chemical and ultraviolet resistance
properties equal to or exceeding those of the geotextile.
11.8 Repair
Holes or tears in the geotextile will be repaired as follows:
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ d 52 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
• On slopes: A patch made from the same geotextile will be double seamed into
place. Should a tear exceed 10 percent of the width of the roll, that roll will
be removed from the slope and replaced.
• Non-slopes: A patch made from the same geotextile will be spot-seamed in
place with a minimum of 6 inches (0.60 meters) overlap in all directions.
Care will be taken to remove any soil or other material that may have penetrated the tom
geotextile.
The CQA Site Manager will observe any repair, note any non-compliance with the above
requirements and report them to the Construction Manager.
11.9 Placement of Soil or Aggregate Materials
The Contractor will place all soil or aggregate
such a manner as to document:
• no damage of the geotextile;
•
•
Non-compliance will be ite Manager and reported to the Construction
Manager.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-0 I .d 53 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
12. GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (GCL) (Rev-01)1
12.1 Introduction
This section of the COA Plan outlines the COA activities to be performed for the
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) installation. The COA Consultant will review the
Construction Drawings, Technical Specifications, and approved addenda or changes.
12.2 Manufacturing
that GCL.
The
•
•
•
•
Quality control tests must be performed, in accordance with the test methods specified in
Table 5, on GCL produced for the project.
The COA Consultant will examine Manufacturer certifications to verify that the property
values listed on the certifications meet or exceed those specified for the GCL and the
measurements of properties by the Manufacturer are pro:ge.rly documented, test methods
acceptable and the certiflcates have been provided at the specified frequency properly
identifying the rolls related to testing. Deviations will be reported to the Construction
Manager.
1 Section 12 Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) added with Revision (Rev) 01.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A,20190530.Rev-Ol.d 54 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
12.3 Labeling
The Manufacturer will identify all rolls of GCL with the following:
• manufactureI s name;
• product identification;
• lot number;
• roll number; and
• roll dimensions .
The C A Site Mana er will examine rolls u
12.4 Shipment and Storage
12.5
12.5.1 Tests
The COA Consultant will sample the GCL either during production at the manufacturing
facility or after delivery to the construction site. The samples will be forwarded to the
Geosynthetics COA Laboratory for testing to assess conformance with the Technical
Specifications. The test methods and minimum testing frequencies are indicated in
Table 5.
Samples will be taken across the width of the roll and will not include the first 3 ft if the
sample is cut on site. Unless otherwise specified, samples wilJ be 3 ft long by the roll
width. The CQA Consultant will mark the machine direction with an arrow and the
manufacturer's roll number on each sample.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-0/.d 55 August 21117 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
If GCL prehydration is performed (standard, non-polymer enhanced GCL). the CQA Site
Manager will deploy a small container to collect water as it is being applied to the surface
of the GCL dming GCL installation. The depth of water within the container will be
measured and compared to the requirements outlined in the Technical Specifications. In
addition, the COA Site Manager will coHect 6 inch square samples of the hydrated GCL
for testing for moisture content. Samples will be collected once the overlying secondary
geomembrane is in place and taken from within a destructive sample location.
he CQA ite Manager will examine results from laboratoiy conformance testing and
will report non-conformance to the Construction Manager.
12.5.2 Conformance Sample Failure
The followin rocedure will a l
conducted by the CQA Laboratory:
•
with the Technical
Specifications: or
•
the Technic . peciOcations. This additional conformance testing will be at ...
the expense of the Manufacturer.
The CQA Site Manager will document actions taken in conjunction with conformance
test failures.
12.6 GCL Delivery and Storage
Upon delivery to the site. the CQA Site Manager will check the GCL rolls for defects
(e.g .. tears, holes) and for damage. The COA Site Manager wm report to the Construction
Manager and the Geosynthetics Installer:
SC0634,CQAP/an5A.20/90530.Rev-Ol.d 56 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
• any rolls, or portions thereof, which should be rejected and removed from the
site because they have se ere flaws; and
• any rolls which include minor repairable flaws.
The GCL rolls delivered to the site wiJl be checked by the COA Site Manager to docwnent
that the roU nwnber correspond to th se on the approved Manufacturer's quality control
certificate of compliance.
12. 7 GCL Installation
The COA Site Manager will monitor and docw11ent tha · e GCL is installed in
and the Technical S e · ·
•
•
•
• roved
•
inch from the
subgrade surface;
• monitoring that the standard, non-polymer enhanced GCL is hydrated
prior to installation of the overlying geomembrane; and
• monitoring that any damage to the GCL is repaired as outlined in tbe
Technical pecifications.
The CQA Site Manager will note non-compliance and report it to the Construction
Manager.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-0 l .d 57 August l(H7 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
13. GEONET
13.1 Introduction
This section of the CQA Plan outlines the CQA activities to be performed for the geonet
installation. The CQA Consultant will review the Construction Drawings, Technical
Specifications, and any approved addenda or changes.
13.2 Manufacturing
The Manufacturer will provide the CQA Consultant with a ·st of certified "minimum
average roll value" properties for the type of geonet to be e.hvered. The Manufacturer
will also provide the CQA Consultant with a written cer · tion signed by a responsible
representative of the Manufacturer that the geonet ac 1a1Iy · vered have "minimum
average roll values" properties which meet or exc all certifie o erty values for that
type of geonet.
ertifications to document that the
or ceed those specified for the
r e , o the Construction Manager.
13.3 Labeling
• Man
•
• lot number;
• roll number; and
• roll dimensions.
The CQA Site Manager will examine rolls upon delivery and deviation from the above
requirements will be reported to the Construction Manager.
13.4 Shipment and Storage
During shipment and storage, the geonet will be protected from mud, dirt, dust, puncture,
cutting or any other damaging or deleterious conditions. The CQA Site Manager will
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01 .d 58 August 1017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geo syn.tee C>
consultants
observe rolls upon delivery to the site and deviation from the above requirements will be
reported to the Construction Manager. Damaged rolls will be rejected and replaced.
The CQA Site Manager will observe that geonet is free of dirt and dust just before
installation. The CQA Site Manager will report the outcome of this observation to the
Construction Manager, and if the geonet is judged dirty or dusty, they will be cleaned by
the Geosynthetic Installer prior to installation.
13.5 Conformance Testing
13.5.1 Tests
The geonet material will be tested for transmissivity (
(ASTM D 5199) at the frequencies presented in Tab
13.5.2 Sampling Procedures
The CQA Consultant will sample
manufacturing facility or after deliver
forwarded to the Geosynthetics CQA La
the Technical Specifications.
the roll and will not include the first
s · ecified, samples will be 3 feet long by the roll width.
achine direction on the samples with an arrow.
The CQA Consultant examine results from laboratory conformance testing and
compare results to the Technical Specifications. The criteria used to evaluate
acceptability are presented in the Technical Specifications. The CQA Consultant will
report any nonconformance to the Construction Manager.
13.5.4 Conformance Test Failure
The following procedure will apply whenever a sample fails a conformance test that is
conducted by the CQA Laboratory:
• The Manufacturer will replace every roll of geonet that is in nonconformance
with the Technical Specifications with a roll that meets specifications; or
SC0634 CQAP/an5A.20190530,Rev-OJ,d 59 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
• The Geosynthetic Installer will remove conformance samples for testing by
the CQA Laboratory from the closest numerical rolls on both sides of the
failed roll. These two samples must conform to the Technical Specifications.
If either of these samples fail, the numerically closest rolls on the side of the
failed sample that is not tested, will be tested by the CQA Laboratory. These
samples must conform to the Technical Specifications. If any of these samples
fail, every roll of geonet on site from this lot and every subsequently delivered
roll that is from the same lot must be tested by the CQA Laboratory for
conformance to the Technical Specifications.
The CQA Site Manager will document actions taken in con·u ction with conformance
test failures.
13.6 Handling and Placement
The Geosynthetic Installer will handle all geo e
are not damaged in any way. The Geosynthetic li
•
• The Geosynthef
damage to unde
ke any necessary precautions to prevent
. · placement of the geonet.
• During onet, care will be taken to prevent entrapment of dirt
or exc . s ive dus th t c d cause clogging of the drainage system, or stones
that c 1d damage .1e adjacent geomembrane. If dirt or excessive dust is
entrappe · the net, it should be cleaned prior to placement of the next
material on t, f'it. In this regard, care should be taken with the handling or
sandbags, to prevent rupture or damage of the sandbag.
• A visual examination of the geonet will be carried out over the entire surface,
after installation to document that no potentially harmful foreign objects are
present.
The CQA Site Manager will note noncompliance and report it to the Construction
Manager.
SC0634 CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 60 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec D
consultants
13. 7 Geonct Scams and Overlaps
Adjacent geonet panels will be joined in accordance with Construction Drawings and
Technical Specifications. As a minimum, the adjacent rolls will be overlapped by at least
4 inches and secured by tying, in accordance with the Technical Specifications.
The CQA Site Manager will note any noncompliance and report it to the Construction
Manager.
13.8 Repair
Holes or tears in the geonet will be repaired by placing a , extending 2 feet beyond
edges of the hole or tear. The patch will be secured by tY, g i 1 approved tying devices
every 6 inches. If the hole or tear width across the is m e: an 50 percent of the
width of the roll, the damaged area will be cut out a the two por ·, s of the geonet will
be joined in accordance with Section 12.7.
The CQA Site Manager will observe,,_""''"'"'"""
requirements and report them to the Con
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20 I 90530.Rev-O I .d 61
n-corn.pliances with the above
August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
14. CONCRETE SPILLWAY
14.1 Introduction
This section prescribes the CQA activities to be performed to monitor that the concrete
spillway is constructed in accordance with Construction Drawings and Technical
Specifications. The concrete spillway construction procedures to be monitored by the
CQA Site Manager, if required, shall include:
• subgrade preparation;
• liner system and cushion geotextile installation;
• welded wire reinforcement installation; and
• concrete placement and finishing.
14.2 COA Monitoring Activities
14.2.1 Subgrade Preparation
· . -cument that the subgrade is prepared in
1d the Construction Drawings.
The CQA Site on 't · and document that the liner system components,
, cushion geotextile, are installed in accordance with the
pecifications and the Construction Drawings.
14.2.3 Welded Wire Reinforcement Installation
The CQA Site Manager shall monitor and document that the welded wire fabric
reinforcement is installed in accordance with the requirements of the Technical
Specifications and the Construction Drawings.
14.2.4 Concrete Installation
The CQA Site Manager shall test, monitor, and document that the concrete is installed in
accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications and the Construction
Drawings. At a minimum, the CQA Site Manager shall review the concrete tickets prior
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-O I .d 62 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
to installing the concrete to monitor that the concrete meets the requirements outlined in
the Technical Specifications.
14.2.5 Conformance Testing
The Contractor shall facilitate the CQA Site Manager in the collection of samples
required for testing. Compression test specimens shall be prepared by the CQA Site
Manager by the following method:
• compression test cylinders from fresh concrete in accordance with ASTM C
172 and C 31.
Compression testing shall be completed on one cylin days, one cylinder at 14
days, and two (2) cylinders at the 28 day strength. he CQ nsultant will examine
results from laboratory conformance testing and '11 report any non-conformance with
the requirements outlined in the Technical Spe i to the Construction Manager.
14.3 Deficiencies
If a defect is discovered in the concrete spi
determine the extent and natur . . defe
extent of the defective area ,
that the CQA Site Manager , ·
14.3.1 Notificati
tions a review of records, or other means
After evaluating th
Construction Manage
work deficiency is to be
, ature of a defect, the CQA Site Manager will notify the
14.3.2 Repairs
· ntractor and schedule appropriate re-evaluation when the
, rected.
The Contractor will correct deficiencies to the satisfaction of the CQA Consultant. If a
project specification criterion cannot be met, or unusual weather conditions hinder work,
then the CQA Consultant will develop and present to the Construction Manager suggested
solutions for his approval.
Re-evaluations by the CQA Site Manager shall continue until the defects have been
corrected before any additional work is performed by the Contractor in the area of the
deficiency.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01 .d 63 August :2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
15. SURVEYING
15.1 Survey Control
Survey control will be performed by the Surveyor as needed. A permanent benchmark
will be established for the site(s) in a location convenient for daily tie--in. The vertical
and horizontal control for this benchmark will be established within normal land
surveying standards.
15.2 Precision and Accuracy
A wide variety of survey equipment is available for the surv. ying requirements for these
projects. The survey instruments used for this work sh · 1 e sufficiently precise and
accurate to meet the needs of the projects.
15.3 Lines and Grades
The following structures will be surve);led to
achieved during construction of the Proj
•
• centerlines of p ·
15.4
15.5 Documentation
Field survey notes should be retained by the Land Surveyor. The findings from the field
surveys should be documented on a set of Survey Record Drawings, which shall be
provided to the Construction Manager in AutoCAD format or other suitable format as
directed by the Construction Manager.
SC0634. CQAP/an5A.20 I 90530.Rev-OJ .d 64 August 1017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geo syn.tee t>
consultants
TABLElA
TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF EARTHWORK
TEST METHOD DESCRIPTION
Sieve Analysis Particle Size Distribution
Modified Proctor Moisture Density Relationship
TABLElB
MINIMUM EARTHWORK TESTING
TEST
Sieve Analysis
Modified Proctor
Nuclear Densometer-In-
situ Moisture/Density
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20 I 90530.Rev-0 I .d 65
TEST STANDARD
ASTMD422
ASTMD 1557
"' 1 per 20,000 CY or 1 per
material type
1 per 20,000 CY or 1 per
material type
1 per 500 yd3
, .. ,ugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
TABLE2A
TEST PROCEDURES FOR THE EVALUATION OF DRAINAGE
AGGREGATE AND SAND
TEST METHOD
Sieve Analysis
Hydraulic Conductivity
(Rigid Wall Permeameter)
Insoluable Residue
TEST
Sieve Analysis
Hydraulic
Conductivity
Insoluable Resi
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ.d
DESCRIPTION TEST STANDARD
Particle Size Distribution of
Fine and Coarse Aggregates
Permeability of Aggregates
Insoluable Residue in ; Carbonate Aggregates
1 per project
1 per project
66
ASTMC 136
ASTMD2434
ASTMD3042
SAND (Rev-01)
1 per source
(Rev-01)
1 per source
(Rev-01)
1 per source
(Rev-01)
August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec C>
consultants
TABLE3
GEOMEMBRANE CONFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS
TEST NAME TEST METHOD FREQUENCY4
Specific Gravity ASTMD 792 200,000 ft2
Thickness ASTMD 5199 200,000 ft2
or ASTM D 5994
Tensile Strength at ASTMD6693 200,000 ft2
Yield
Tensile Strength at ASTMD6693 200,000 ft2
Break
Elongation at Yield
Elongation at
Break
Carbon Black 200,000 ft2
Content
Carbon Black 200,000 ft2
Dispersion
Interface Shear 1 per project
Strength 1•2•3
Notes:
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-01.d 67 August 1017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
TABLE4
GEOTEXTILE CONFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS
TEST NAME
Mass per Unit Area
Grab Strength
Puncture Resistance
Permittivity
Apparent Opening Size
Notes:
I. Nonwoven geotextile only.
TEST NAME
Mass per Unit Area
Index Flux
Bentonite Moisture Content
-Post Field Hydratio
I. Note: H dra11lic index ·
TEST METHOD
ASTMD 5261
ASTMD4632
ASTMD 6241
ASTMD4491
ASTMD 4751
TABLE6
MINIMUM
FREQUENCY
1 test per 260,000 ft2
1 test per 260,000 ft2
1 test per 260,000 ft2
1 test per 260,000 ft2
1 t per 260,000 ft2
~ MINIMUM FREQUENCY ..
1 test per 100,000 :ft2
1 test per 400,000 ft2
1 test per 4 secondary
geomembrane destructive
samples
GEONET CONFORMANCE TESTING REQUIREMENTS
TEST NAME TEST METHOD MINIMUM FREQUENCY
Thickness ASTMD5199 1 test per 200,000 ft2
Hydraulic Transmissivity ASTMD4716 1 test per 400,000 ft2
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-OJ.d 68 August 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
Geosyntec 1>
consultants
Note: Transmissivity shall be measured using water at 68°F with a gradient of 0.1 under a confining pressure of 7,000 lb/ft2. The
geonet shall be placed in the testing device between 60-mil smooth geomembrane. Measurements are taken one hour after
application of confining pressure.
SC0634.CQAP/an5A.20190530.Rev-Ol.d 69 ,..,ugust 2017 May 2019 (Rev-01)
APPENDIXC
Project Technical Specifications
Revision
00
01
Prepared for
Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc.
6425 S. Highway 191
P.O. Box 809
Blanding, UT 84511
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
Issue Date
August 2017
May 2019
Notes
5AAND5B
BLANDING, UTAH
Prepared by
Geosyntec C>
consultants
engineers I scientists I innovators
16644 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 301
San Diego, CA 92127
Project Number SC0634
Issue for UDEQ Review
DEQ Interrogatory Response 1 (IR-1)
CERTIFICATION PAGE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
CELLS SA AND SB CONSTRUCTION
ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA), INC.
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
under the supervision and direction of
Professional Engineer is affixed below.
Gregory T. Corcoran, P.E.
Engineer of Record
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section 01010 Summary of Work
Section 01025 Measurement & Payment
Section 01300 Submittals
Section 01400 Quality Control
Section 01500 Construction Facilities
Section 01505 Mobilization / Demobilization
Section 01560
Section 01700
Section 02070
Section 02200
Section 02220
Section 02225
Section 02616 Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe
Section 02770 Geo membrane
Geo textile
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Geonet
Section 03400 Cast-In-Place Concrete
PART I -GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 01010
SUMMARY OF WORK
A. The Work consists of constructing Cells 5A and 5B under separate contracts and at separate times.
Cell 5A will be constructed first, followed by Cell 5B in subsequent years. These Technical
Specifications are to be used for both Projects.
B. The Work generally involves the placement and compaction of fill, preparation of subgrade,
installation of geosynthetic liner system, and associated piping.
C. The Work will generally consist of:
1. Initial topographic survey;
2. Mass excavation and fill placement and compa
3. Subgrade preparation;
4.
5. e (HOPE) tertiary DraiR biffeflM
ffifjHaJ-tJl''t!ri!M!flfflt~*3'A1eB--HiAl-'tH11lfee--5s;aunmH'!p.-!sooid~:eool+
6.
6. , secondary geomembrane on the bottom of the Cell, 130-
membrane on the side slopes and 60-mil textured
lope riser trench;
7.
8.
9. oth 60-mil HOPE primary geomembrane and textured 60-mil HOPE
the sump side slope riser trench;
10. lnstallatio1i · f 16 oz./SY nonwoven geotextile cushion;
11. Installation of slimes drain 4-inch and 18-inch PVC pipe and fittings;
12. Installation of drainage aggregate around slimes drain and within sump;
13. Installation of woven geotextile;
14. Installation of60-mil HOPE geomembrane splash pads;
15. Backfill and compaction of anchor trenches;
16. Construction of concrete spillway and pipe support at the side slope riser termination; and
17. Installation of strip composite drainage layer, including sand bags.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Summary of Work
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPEC1FICATJONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page O IO 10-1 Rev-0 I May 2019
1.02 CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITIES
A. Start, layout, construct, and complete the construction of the lining system (the Project) in
accordance with the Technical Specifications, CQA Plan, and Drawings (Contract Documents).
B. Provide a competent site superintendent, capable of reading and understanding the Construction
Documents, who shall receive instructions from the Construction Manager. Site superintendent
shall have successfully completed projects of similar scope (excavation of soil and rock, fill
placement and compaction, finish work to close tolerances to lines and grades, and geosynthetic
liner installation).
C. Establish means, techniques, and procedures for constructing and otherwise executing the Work.
D. Establish and maintain proper Health and Safety practices for the duration of the Project.
E. Except as otherwise specified, furnish the following and pay the cost thereof:
F.
l. Labor, superintendent, and products.
2. Construction supplies, equipment, tools, and , 1
3.
4. Other facilities and services necessar
5. A Registered Land Surveyor, license
and to certify as-built Record Drawings.
Pay cost of legally required sales, c d governmental fees.
G. ordinances rules, regulations, orders, and other legal
ublic agencies bearing on performance of the Work.
H. · to the Construction Manager. Where applicable, the
ordinate submittals and communications with the representatives who
·oos through the Construction Manager.
T. Mainta, ·ces and proper conduct at all times among Contractor's employees. The
'ts authori representative, may require that disciplinary action be taken against an
employee o Confr ctor for disorderly, improper, or unsafe conduct. Should an employee of the
Contractor be ·s ed from his duties for misconduct, incompetence, or unsafe practice, or
combination there .f that employee shall not be rehired for the duration of the Work.
J. Coordinate the Work with the utilities, private utilities, and/or other parties performing work on or
adjacent to the Site. Eliminate or minimize delays in the Work and conflicts with those utilities or
contractors. Coordinate activities with the Construction Manager. Schedule private utility and
public utility work relying on survey points, lines, and grades established by the Contractor to occur
immediately after those points, lines, and grades have been established.
K. Coordinate activities of the several trades, suppliers, and subcontractors, if any, performing the
Work.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Summary of Work
YSC0634 TECHNJCALSPECIFICATIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 01010-2 Rev-01 May 2019
1.03 NOTIFICATION
A. The Contractor shaJI notify the Construction Manager in writing ifhe elects to subcontract, sublet,
or reassign any portion of the Work. This shall be done at the time the bid is submitted. The written
statement shall describe the portion of the Work to be performed by the Subcontractor and shall
include an indication, by reference if desired by the Construction Manager, that the Subcontractor
is particularly experienced and equipped to perform that portion of the Work. No portion of the
Work shall be subcontracted, sublet, or reassigned without written permission of the Construction
Manager. Consent to subcontract, sublet, or reassign any portion of the Work by the Construction
Manager shall not be considered as a testimony of the Construction Manager as to the qualifications
of the Subcontractor and shall not be construed to relieve the Contractor of any responsibilities for
completion of the Work.
1.04 CONFORMANCE
A. Work shall conform to the Technical Specifications, Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan,
and Drawings that form a part of these Contract Documents
B. Omissions from the Technical Specifications, CQA B
details of the Work which are necessary to carry the 1
customarily performed and shaJI not relieve t Contractor
misdescribed details of the Work, but they sh
described in the Technical Specifications,
1.05 DEFINITIONS
A. OWNER -The term Owner means
be provided.
B. rm Construction Manager means the firm responsible for
ation control. All formal documents will be submitted
C. m Design Engineer means the firm responsible for the design and
ction Documents. The Design Engineer is responsible for approving all
tions, or clarifications encountered during construction. The Design
to the Owner.
D. CQA CONSUL 1'A: T -The term CQA Consultant refers to the firm responsible for CQA related
monitoring and testing activities. The CQA Consultant's authorized personnel will include CQA
Engineer-of-Record and CQA Site Manager. The CQA Consultant may also perform construction
quality control (CQC) work as appropriate.
E. CONTRACTOR -The term Contractor means the firm that is responsible for the Work. The
Contractor's responsibilities include the Work of any and all of the subcontractors and suppliers.
The Contractor reports directly to the Construction Manager. All subcontractors report directly to
the Contractor.
F. SURVEYOR-The term Surveyor means the firm that will perform the survey and provide as-built
Record Drawings for the Work. The Surveyor shall be a Registered Land Surveyor, licensed to
practice in the State of Utah. The Surveyor is employed by and reports directly to the Contractor.
G. SITE -The term Site refers to all approved staging areas, and all areas where the Work is to be
performed, both public and private owned.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Summary of Work
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFJCA TIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page 01010-3 Rev-01 May 2019
H. WORK -The term Work means the entire completed construction, or various separately
identifiable parts thereof, required to be furnished under the Contract Documents. Work includes
any and all labor, services, materials, equipment, tools, supplies, and facilities required by the
Contract Documents and necessary for the completion of the project. Work is the result of
performing services, furnishing labor, and furnishing and incorporating materials and equipment
into the construction, all as required by the Contract Documents.
I. DAY -A calendar day on which weather and other conditions not under the control of the
Contractor will permit construction operations to proceed for the major part of the day (greater than
4 hours) with the normal working force engaged in performing the controlling item or items of Work
which would be in progress at that time.
J. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS -Contract Documents consist of the Technical Specifications, CQA
Plan, and Drawings.
1.06 CONTRACT TIMES
A. The time stated for completion and substantial completio s ·all be in accordance with the Contract
Times specified in the Agreement. No claims for d m gi hall be made by the Contractor for
delays.
B.
1.07 CONTRACTOR USE OF WORK Sl'T
A.
B. The Con· ·e or shal be ·esp · · l.e for protecting private and public property including pavements,
draina ulverts, elec i ity, highway, telephone, and similar property and shall make good of, or
pay for, a 1age cau thereto. Control of erosion throughout the project is of prime importance
and is the res , · fthe Contractor. The Contractor shall provide and maintain all necessary
measures to c tr . osion during progress of the Work to the satisfaction of the Construction
Manager and all pplicable laws and regulations, and shall remove such measures and collected
debris upon completion of the project. All provisions for erosion and sedimentation control apply
equally to all areas of the Work.
C. The Contractor shall promptly notify the Construction Manager in writing of any subsurface or
latent physical conditions at the Site that differ materially from those indicated or referred to in the
Contract Documents. Construction Manager will promptly review those conditions and advise
Owner in writing if further investigations or tests are necessary. If the Construction Manager finds
that the results of such investigations or tests indicate that there are subsurface and latent physical
conditions which differ materially from those intended in the Contract Documents, and which could
not reasonably have been anticipated by Contractor, a Change Order shall be issued incorporating
the necessary revisions.
D. At no time shall the Contractor interfere with operations of businesses on or in the vicinity of the
Site. Should the Contractor need to work outside the regular working hours, the Contractor is
required to submit a written request and obtain approval by the Construction Manager.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining Svstem Construction Summary of Work
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page O 1010-4 Rev-0 I May 2019
1.08 PRESERVATION OF SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
A. Federal and State legislation provides for the protection, preservation, and collection of data having
scientific, prehistoric, historical, or archaeological value (including relics and specimens) that might
otherwise be lost due to alteration of the terrain as a result of any construction work. If evidence of
such information is discovered during the course of the Work, the Contractor shall notify the
Construction Manager immediately, giving the location and nature of the findings. Written
confirmation shall be forwarded within two (2) working days.
B. The Contractor shall exercise care so as not to damage artifacts uncovered during excavation
operations, and shall provide such cooperation and assistance as may be necessary to preserve the
findings for removal or other disposition by the Construction Manager or Government agency.
C. Where appropriate, by reason of a discovery, the Construction Manager may order delays in the
time of performance, or changes in the Work, or both. If such delays, or changes, or both, are
ordered, the time of performance and contract price shall be adjusted in accordance with the
applicable clauses of the Contract.
1.09 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
A. Measurement for Work will be according to th in Section O I 025 of these
Specifications.
1.10 EXISTING UTILITIES
A. The Contractor shall be responsihl
all existing utilities encountered w
Underground Service Alert (USA) I
B.
made 48 hours in advance
Costs resulting froi
include repair and c ,
service to affected par
II be borne by the Contractor. Costs of damage shall
nta I costs resulting from the unscheduled loss of utility
C. y stop work and notify the Construction Manager of all utilities
he Contractor shall also Survey the exact location of any utilities
uring con · uction.
1.11 CONTRACTOR Q
A. The Contractor, and all subcontractors, shall be licensed at the time of bidding, and throughout the
period of the Contract, by the State of Utah to do the type of work required under terms of these
Contract Documents. By submitting a bid, the Contractor certifies that he is skilled, competent, and
knowledgeable on the nature, extent and inherent conditions of the Work to be performed and has
been regularly engaged in the general class and type of work called for in these Contract Documents
and meets the qualifications required in these Specifications.
B. The Construction Manager shall disqualify a bidder that either cannot provide references, or if the
references cannot substantiate the Contractor's qualifications.
C. By submission of a bid for this Project, the Contractor acknowledges that he is thoroughly familiar
with the Site conditions.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Summary of Work
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-OJ Page 01010-5 Rev-0 I May 2019
D. Contractor shall provide a full-time, on-site superintendent that is qualified in this type of work.
Site superintendent shall have successfully completed three projects of similar scope (excavation of
soil and rock, fill placement and compaction, finish work to close tolerances to lines and grades, and
geosynthetic liner installation).
1.12 INTERPRETATION OF TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS, CQA PLAN, AND DRAWINGS
A Should it appear that the Work to be done or any matters relative thereto are not sufficiently detailed
or explained in the Technical Specifications, CQA Plan, and/or Drawings, the Design Engineer will
further explain or clarify, as may be necessary. In the event of any questions arising respecting the
true meaning of the Contract Documents, the matter shall be referred to the Design Engineer, whose
decision thereon shall be final.
1.13 HEALTH AND SAFETY
A. The Contractor shall be responsible for health and safety of its own crew, subcontractors, suppliers,
and visitors. The Contractor shall adhere to the Contract-0 Safety Rules for the Site and all
applicable Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSH O les.
1.14 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A.
B. PERMITS -The Contractor shall
the facility.
C.
D. TlN SERVJCES AND WELLS -The Contractor shall exercise care to
avoid di bing or dat a ing the existing monitor wells, settlement monuments, electrical poles
and lines, p nent · w-ground utilities, permanent drainage structures, and temporary utilities
and structures. b · 1e Work requires the Contractor to be near or to cross locations of known
utilities, the Con '8. or shall carefully uncover, support, and protect these utilities and shall not cut,
damage, or otherwise disturb them without prior authorization from the Construction Manager. All
utilities or wells damaged by the Contractor shall be immediately repaired by the Contractor to the
satisfaction of the Construction Manager at no additional cost.
E. BURNING -The use of open frres for any reason is prohibited.
F. TEMPORARY ROADS -The Contractor shall be responsible for constructing and maintaining all
temporary roads and lay down areas that the Contractor may require in the execution of the Work.
G. CONSTRUCTION WATER-The Contractor shall obtain water from the Owner for construction
and dust control. The Contractor shall not add substances (such as soap) to construction water.
H. COOPERATION -The Contractor shall cooperate with all other parties engaged in project-related
activities to the greatest extent possible. Disputes or problems should be referred to the Construction
Manager for resolution.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5.D 20190515.REV-Ol Page O IO 10-6
Summary of Work
Rev-0 I May 2019
I. FAMILIARIZATION -The Contractor is responsible for becoming familiar with all aspects of the
Work prior to performing the Work.
J. SAFEGUARDS -The Contractor shall provide and use all personnel safety equipment, barricades,
guardrails, signs, lights, flares, and flagmen as required by MSHA, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), state, or local codes and ordinances. No excavations deeper than 4 feet
with side slopes steeper than 2: 1 (horizontal:vertical) shall be made without the prior approval of
the Design Engineer and the Construction Manager. When shoring is required, the design and
inspection of such shoring shall be the Contractor's responsibility and shall be subject to the review
of the Design Engineer and Construction Manager prior to use. No personnel shall work within or
next to an excavation requiring shoring until such shoring has been installed, inspected, and
approved by an engineer registered in the State of Utah. The Contractor shall be responsible for any
fines imposed due to violation of any laws and regulations relating to the safety of the Contractor's
personnel.
K. CLEAN-UP -The Contractor shall be responsible for general housekeeping during construction.
Upon completion of the Work, the Contractor shall re, , e all of his equipment, facilities,
construction materials, and trash. All disturbed surface · s shall be re-paved, re-vegetated, or
otherwise put into the pre-existing condition before per , , g the Work, or a condition satisfactory
to the Construction Manager.
L. SECURITY -The Contractor is responsible ti
equipment.
M. ACCEPTANCE OF WORK -The Contractor s \"
until accepted by Construction
responsibility for the Work: (i) w
submitted all required documentatio
manufacturing certificati
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
PART 3-:EXECUTTO
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT
NOT USED.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-OJ
[END OF SECTION]
Page O 1010-7
, ition of all of his tools and
Summary of Work
Rev-0 I May 2019
SECTION 01025
MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
PART 1-GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A. This section covers measurement and payment criteria applicable to the Work performed under lump
sum and unit price payment methods, and non-payment for rejected work.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
A. This section relates to all other sections of the contract.
1.03 AUTHORITY
1.04
1.05
A. Measurement
complement the criteria of this section.
specification section shall govern.
B. A surveyor, licensed in the State of Utah, I i
compute quantities accordingly. All measur
A.
B.
Manager maintains the right to pr
verify measurements and quantiLi.es ·
A. Measurement by Volume: Measurement shall be by the cubic dimension using mean lengths,
widths, and heights or thickness, or by average end area method as measured by the surveyor. All
measurement shall be the difference between the original ground surface and the design ("neat-
line") dimensions and grades.
B. Measurement by Area: Measurement shall be by the square dimension using mean lengths and
widths and/or radius as measured by the surveyor. All measurement shall be the difference between
the original ground surface and the design ("neat-line") dimensions and grades.
C. Linear Measurement: Measurement shall be by the linear dimension, at the item centerline or mean
chord. All measurement shall be the difference between the original ground surface and the design
("neat-line") dimensions and grades.
D. Stipulated Lump Sum Measurement: Items shall be measured as a percentage by weight, volume,
area, or linear means or combination, as appropriate, of a completed item or unit of Work.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Measurement and Payment
YSC0634 TECHNJCALSPECIFICA TIONSS D,201905 I S.REV-01 Page O 1025-1 Rev-01 May 2019
1.06 PAYMENT
A. Payment includes full compensation for all required labor, products, tools, equipment,
transportation, services, and incidentals; erection, application, or installation ofan item of the Work;
and all overhead and profit. Final payment for Work governed by unit prices will be made on the
basis of the actual measurements and quantities accepted by the Construction Manager multiplied
by the unit price for Work which is incorporated in or made necessary by the Work.
B. A monthly progress payment schedule will be used to compensate the Contractor for the Work. The
monthly amount to be paid to the Contractor is calculated as the percent of completed work for each
bid item multiplied by the total anticipated work for that bid item minus a IO percent retainer.
C. When the Contractor has completed all Work associated with completion of the project, the
remaining 10 percent retainer of the contract amount will be paid to the Contractor after filing the
Notice of Completion.
1.07 NON-PAYMENT FOR REJECTED PRODUCTS
A. Payment shall not be made for any of the following:
1. Products wasted or disposed of in a manne ·
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. mation (i.e. soil residues, fuel spills, solvents, etc.).
B.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Measurement and Payment
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-OJ Page 01025-2 Rev-0 I May 2019
1.08 BID ITEMS
A. The following bid items shall be used by the Owner and by the Contractor to bid the Work described
in these bid documents.
BID SECTION ITEM
1 01500
2 01505
3 02070
4 02200
5 02200
6 02200
7 02220
8 02220
9 02616
10 02616
11 02616
12 02770
13 02770
14 02770
.u 02772
16
17
18
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
NOT USED.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
NOT USED.
DESCRIPTION
Construction Facilities
Mobilization / Demobilization
Well Abandonment
Soil Excavation
Rock Excavation
Engineered Fill
Subgrade Preparation
Anchor Trench
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
NOT USED.
[END OF SECTION]
Cell 5A and SB Lining ystcm Construction
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5 .D 20190515.REV-O I Page 01025-3
UNITS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LS
LF
LF
LF
LF
SF
SF
SF
SF
LS
LS
Measurement-and Payment
Rev-01 May 2019
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 01300
SUBMITTALS
A. This section contains requirements for administrative and work-related submittals such as
construction progress schedules, Shop Drawings, test results, operation and maintenance data, and
other submittals required by Contract Documents.
B. Submit required materials to the Construction Manager for proper distribution and review in
accordance with requirements of the Contract Documents.
1.02 CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS SCHEDULES
A.
B.
C.
The Contractor shall prepare and submit two (2) coyfes f the baseline construction progress
Schedule to the Construction Manager for review ifbtn 'fl e 5) days after the effective date of
Contract.
Schedules shall be prepared in Microsoft
following items.
1. A separate horizontal bar fo ·
2.
3.
4.
I.
n~onstruction of the Work shall include the following items
b. Demobilization schedule.
c. Final site clean-up.
d. Show projected percentage of completion for each item as of first day of each week.
e. Show each individual Bid Item.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Submittals
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS,D.20190515,REV .QI Page O 1300-1 Rev·O I May 2019
D. Schedule Revisions:
I. Bi-weekly to reflect changes in progress of Work.
2. Indicate progress of each activity at submittal date.
3. Show changes occurring since the previous schedule submittal. Changes shall include the
following.
a. Major changes in scope.
b. Activities modified since previous submittal.
c. Revised projections of progress and completion.
d. Other identifiable changes.
4. Provide narrative report as needed to defme:
a.
b. Recommended corrective action and i
1.03 CONSTRUCTION WORK SCHEDULE
A.
1.04 SHOP ORA WINGS AND SAMPLES
A.
B.
Shop Drawings, product dal!
the Specifications.
I.
2.
C.
hall be submitted as required in individual Sections of
d. Conformance with Specifications.
3. Coordinate each submittal with requirements of the Work and Contract Documents.
4. Notify the Construction Manager in writing, at the time of the submittal, of deviations from
requirements of Contract Documents.
5. Begin no fabrication or Work pertaining to required submittals until return of the submittals
with appropriate approval.
6. Designate dates for submittal and receipt of reviewed Shop Drawings and samples in the
construction progress schedule.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Submittals
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATJONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page 01300-2 Rev-01 May 2019
C. Submittals shall contain:
D.
l . Date of submittal and dates of previous submittals.
2. Project title and number.
3. Contract identification.
4. Names of:
a. The Contractor.
b. Supplier.
c. Manufacturer.
5. Summary of items contained in the submittal.
6. Identification of the product with identification numbers and the Drawing and Specification
section numbers.
7. Clearly identified field dimensions.
8. Details required on the Drawings and in the S
9. Manufacturer, model number, dimensions
10. Relation to adjacent or critical feature
11. Applicable standards, such as AST
12.
13. Identification of revisions or
14.
15.
1.
ce1tifyi11g review of the submittal, verification of the
nts, fi d construction criteria, and coordination of information
· i.J, n -ts of Work and Contract Documents . ...--..... -
2. Shop Drawings and Product Data:
a. Revise initial drawings or data and resubmit as specified for initial submittal.
b. Indicate changes made other than those requested by the Construction Manager,
Design Engineer, or CQA Consultant.
E. Distribute reproductions of Shop Drawings and copies of product data which have been accepted
by the Construction Manager to:
1. Job site file.
2. Record documents file.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Submittals
YSC0634.TECHNJCALSPECIFICATJONS5,D.20190515,REV-01 Page 01300-3 Rev-01 May 2019
1.05
1.06
F. Construction Manager's Duties:
I . Verify that review comments are technically correct and are consistent with technical and
contractual requirements of the work.
2. Return submittals to the Contractor for distribution or re-submittal.
G. Design Engineer's Duties:
H.
A.
B.
A.
I . Review submittals promptly for compliance with contract documents and in accordance with
the schedule.
2. Affix stamp and signature, and indicate either the requirements for re-submittal or no
comments.
3. Return submittals to the Construction Manager.
CQA Consultant's Duties:
I. Review submittals promptly for compliance witl
the schedule.
2. Affix stamp and signature,
comments.
3. Return submittals to the Construction
I.
s of initial schedule (baseline schedule).
2. Construction Progress Schedule:
a. Two copies of initial schedule.
b. Two copies of each revision.
3. Shop Drawings: Two copies.
4. Certification Test Results: Two copies.
5. Other Required Submittals:
a. Two copies, ifrequired, for review.
b. Two copies, ifrequired, for record.
B. Deliver the required copies of the submittals to the Construction Manager.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Submittals
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D.20190515 REV-01 Page 01300-4 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
NOT USED.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
NOTUSED.
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
NOT USED.
[END OF SECTION]
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS.D.20190515 REV-01 Page 01300-5
ubmittuls
Rev-01 May 2019
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 01400
QUALITY CONTROL
A. Monitor quality control over suppliers, Manufacturers, products, services, Site conditions, and
workmanship, to produce Work of specified quality.
B. Comply with Manufacturers' instructions, including each step in sequence.
C. Should Manufacturers' instructions conflict with Technical Specifications, request clarification from
Design Engineer before proceeding.
D. Comply with specified standards as minimum quality for Work except where more stringent
tolerances, codes, or specified requirements indicate hi 1 st ndards or more precise workmanship.
E. Perform Work by persons qualified to produce w
1.02 TOLERANCES
A. Monitor tolerance control of installed prod
tolerances to accumulate.
B. u ·acturers' tolerances conflict with Technical
ineer before proceeding.
1.03 REFERENCES
A.
B. standard by date of current issue on date of Notice to Proceed with
1,1here a specific date is established by code.
C. Obtain copies of standards where required by product Specification sections.
1.04 INSPECTING AND TESTING SERVICES
A. The CQA Consultant will perform construction quality assurance (CQA) inspections, tests, and
other services specified in individual Sections of the Specification.
B. The Contractor shall cooperate with CQA Consultant; furnish samples of materials, design mix,
equipment, tools, storage, safe access, and assistance by incidental labor as requested.
C. CQA testing or inspecting does not relieve Contractor, subcontractors, and suppliers from their
requirements to perform quality control Work as indicated in the Technical Specifications.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Quality Control
YSC0634.TECHNJCALSPECIFJCATIONS5.D.20190515.REV-Ol Page O 1400-1 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
NOT USED.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
NOT USED.
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
NOT USED.
[END OF SECTION]
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5.D.20190515.REV-O! Page 01400-2
Quality Control
Rev-0 I May 2019
SECTION 01500
CONSTRUCTION FACILITIES
PART I -GENERAL
1.01 SECTION INCLUDES
A. Construction facilities include furnishing of all equipment, materials, tools, accessories, incidentals,
labor, and performing all work for the installation of equipment and for construction of facilities,
including their maintenance, operation, and removal, if required, at the completion of the Work
under the Contract.
1.02 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
1.03
A. Construction facilities include, but are not limited to, the ·Fi wing equipment, materials, facilities,
B.
areas, and services:
1. Parking Areas.
2. Temporary Roads.
3. Storage of Materials and Equipment.
4. Construction Equipment.
5. Temporary Sanitary Fa.ciliti
6. Temporary Water.
7.
8.
9.
, operate construction facilities in accordance with the applicable
r es, and regulations, and the Contract Documents.
A. Contractor is respQfl ible for furnishing, installing, constructing, operating, maintaining, removing,
and disposing of the construction facilities, as specified in this Section, and as required for the
completion of the Work under the Contract.
B. Contractor shall maintain construction facilities in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition at all times
until completion of the Work.
C. Contractor shall minimize land disturbances related to the construction facilities to the greatest
extent possible and restore land, to the extent reasonable and practical, to its original contours by
grading to provide positive drainage and by seeding the area to match with existing vegetation or as
specified elsewhere.
1.04 TEMPORARY ROADS AND PARKING AREAS
A. Temporary roads and parking areas are existing roads that are improved or new roads constructed
by Contractor for convenience of Contractor in the performance of the Work under the Contract.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Construction Facilities
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFJCA TIONSS.D.20 l 905 l 5.REV-O l Page O 1500-1 Rev-Ol May 2019
B. Contractor shall coordinate construction with Construction Manager.
C. Construct and operate roads in accordance with all MSHA and other applicable standards.
D. If applicable, coordinate all road construction activities with local utilities, fire, and police
departments.
E. Keep erosion to a minimum and maintain suitable grade and radii of curves to facilitate ease of
movement of vehicles and equipment.
F. Furnish and install longitudinal and cross drainage facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches,
structures, pipes and the like.
G. Clean equipment so that mud or dirt is not carried onto public roads. Clean up any mud or dirt
transported by equipment on paved roads both on-site and off-site.
1.05 STORAGE OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT
1.06
A. Make arrangements for material and equipment stora e s. Locations and configurations of
B.
C.
A.
B.
approved facilities are subject to the acceptance of th , ons[
gasoline or similar fuels must co o
approved for this purpose by the Co
C. Provide, ma· · · n, anlil , move upon completion of the Work, all temporary rigging, scaffolding,
hoisting equip.,· e ris boxes, barricades around openings and excavations, fences, ladders, and
all other temporar 1vork, as required for all Work hereunder.
D. Construction equipment and temporary work must conform to all the requirements of state, county,
and local authorities, MSHA, and underwriters that pertain to operation, safety, and fire hazard.
Furnish and install all items necessary for conformity with such requirements, whether or not called
for under separate Sections of these Technical Specifications.
1.07 TEMPORARY SANITARY FACILITIES
A. Provide temporary sanitary facilities for use by all employees and persons engaged in the Work,
including subcontractors, their employees and authorized visitors, and the Construction Manager.
B. Sanitary facilities include enclosed chemical toilets and washing facilities. These facilities must
meet the requirements of local public health standards.
C. Locate sanitary facilities as approved by Construction Manager, and maintain in a sanitary condition
during the entire course of the Work.
Cell SA and SB Lining Sysrcm Construction Construction Facilities
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page 01500-2 Rev-01 May 2019
1.08 TEMPORARY WATER
A. Make all arrangements for water needs from the Owner.
B. Provide drinking water for all personnel at the site.
1.09 FIRST AID FACILITIES
A. Provide first aid equipment and supplies to serve all Contractor personnel at the Site.
1.10 HEALTH AND SAFETY
A. The Contractor shall submit a Site Health and Safety Plan for review a minimum of 7 days prior to
mobilization.
B. Provide necessary monitoring equipment and personal protective equipment in accordance with
Contractor prepared Site Health and Safety Plan.
1.11 SECURITY
A.
1.12 SHUT-DOWN TIME OF SERVICE
A. Do not disconnect or shut down a >:
written permission of Construction
1.13 MAINTENANCE
A.
1.14
he Work and the Site until final
Y. t 1e Construction Manager.
• emporary roads, and the like in good working condition
ring the term of the Work.
A. Upon o.rk, or prior thereto, when so required by Construction Manager:
1. mag o roads caused by or resulting from the Contractor's work or operations.
2. Remove a dispose of all construction facilities. Similarly, all areas utilized for temporary
facilities shall be returned to near original, natural state, or as otherwise indicated or directed
by the Construction Manager.
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
NOT USED.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
NOT USED.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5.D.20190515.REV-O 1
Construction Facilities
Page 01500-3 Rev-0 I May 2019
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. Providing for and complying with the requirements set forth in this Section for Construction
Facilities shall be lump sum (LS) and payment will be based on the unit price provided on the Bid
Schedule.
B. The following are considered incidental to the Work:
1. Mobilization.
2. Temporary roadways and parking areas.
3. Temporary sanitary facilities.
4. Decontamination of equipment.
5. Security.
6. Demobilization.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS D.20190515.REV-01 Page O 1500-4
Construction Facilities
Rev-01 May 20 I 9
PART 1 -GENERAL
SECTION 01505
MOBILIZATION/ DEMOBILIZATION
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A. Mobilization consists of preparatory work and operations, including but not limited to those
necessary for the movement of personnel and project safety; including: adequate personnel,
equipment necessary for full planned production to meet baseline schedule, supplies, and incidentals
to the project Site; establishment of facilities necessary for work on the project; premiums on bond
and insurance for the project and for other work and operations the Contractor must perform or costs
the Contractor must incur before beginning work on the project, which are not covered in other bid
items.
B. Demobilization consists of work and operations inc uiffii , but not limited to, movement of
personnel, equipment, supplies, and incidentals off-s·
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
NOT USED.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
NOT USED.
4.01 GENERAL
A.
e unit price provided on the Bid Schedule.
B. t Price for obilization/Demobilization shall include the provision for movement of
the job. • e· removal of all facilities and equipment at the completion of the project;
r , Health and Safety Plan; all necessary safety measures; and all other related
mobilization an , obilization costs. Price bid for mobilization shall not exceed 10 percent of the
total bid for the Project. Fifty percent of the mobilization bid price, less retention, will be paid on
the initial billing provided all equipment and temporary facilities are in place and bond fees paid.
The remaining 50 percent of the mobilization bid price will be paid on satisfactory removal of all
facilities and equipment on completion of the project.
[END OF SECTION]
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Mobilization / Demobilization
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D 201905 l S.REV-0 l Page O 1505-1 Rev-Ol May 2019
SECTION 01560
TEMPORARY CONTROLS
PART 1-GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A. Temporary Controls required during the term of the Contract for the protection of the environment
and the health and safety of workers and general public.
B. Furnishing all equipment, materials, tools, accessories, incidentals, and labor, and performing all
work for the installation of equipment and construction of facilities, including their maintenance
and operation during the term of the Contract.
C. Temporary Controls include:
D.
I.
2.
3.
Dust Control.
Pollution Control.
Traffic and Safety Controls.
ations and as required by the Construction
lean safe, and sanitary condition at all times
1.02 DUST CONTROL
A.
B.
operat1
C. e:vide er. Contractor shall provide overhead tank and use water source to fill
ntinuous basis (i.e., water supply shall not be operated on and off quickly).
1.03 POLLUTION CONTROL
A. Pollution of Waterways:
I. Perform Work using methods that prevent entrance or accidental spillage of solid or liquid
matter, contaminants, debris, and other objectionable pollutants and wastes into
watercourses, flowing or dry, and underground water sources.
2. Such pollutants and wastes will include, but will not be limited to, refuse, earth and earth
products, garbage, cement, concrete, sewage effluent, industrial waste, hazardous chemicals,
oil and other petroleum products, aggregate processing tailings, and mineral salts.
B. Dispose of pollutants and wastes in accordance with applicable permit provisions or in a manner
acceptable to and approved by the Construction Manager.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Temporary Controls
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5.D-20190515.REV-01 Page O 1560-1 Rev-01 May 2019
C. Storage and Disposal of Petroleum Product:
I. Petroleum products covered by this Section include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and
refined and used oil. During project construction, store all petroleum products in such a way
as to prevent contamination of all ground and surface waters and in accordance with local,
state, and federal regulations.
2. Lubricating oil may be brought into the project area in steel drums or other means, as the
Contractor elects. Store used lubricating oil in steel drums, or other approved means, and
return them to the supplier for disposal. Do not bum or otherwise dispose of at the Site.
3. Secondary containment shall be provided for products stored on site, in accordance with the
Owner provided Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
1.04 TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONTROLS
A. Perform in accordance with MSHA and other applicable req jremenls.
B. Post construction areas and roads with traffic contr l sig s or devices used for protection of
workmen, the public, and equipment. Signs and de .i es n conform to the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) Manual on Uniform T a 1c Contro · vices for Streets and Highways.
C. Remove signs or traffic control devices
particularly important to remove any mar
D.
E.
F.
visibility could cause a driver to tum off the ro
rails, t
plankin
G. Construct an ·n aJ fences, planking, barricades, lights, shoring, and warning signs as required
by local author.itte and federal and state safety ordinances, and as required to protect all property
from injury or loss and as necessary for the protection of the public, and provide walks around any
obstructions made in a public place for carrying out the Work covered in this Contract. Leave all
such protection in place and maintained until removal is authorized by the Construction Manager.
1.05 MAINTENANCE
A. Maintain all temporary controls in good working conditions during the term of the Contract for the
safe and efficient transport of equipment and supplies, and for construction of permanent works.
1.06 STATUS AT COMPLETION
A. Upon completion of the Work, or prior thereto as approved by the Construction Manager, remove
all temporary controls and restore disturbed areas.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Temporary Controls
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D 20 I 90515.REV-O I Page 01560-2 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
NOT USED.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
NOT USED.
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 TEMPORARY CONTROLS
A. Temporary Controls: the measurement and payment of temporary controls shall be in accordance
with and as a part of Mobilization/Demobilization, as outlined in Section 01505.
[END OF SECTION]
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Temporarv Controls
VSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page 01560-3 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES
SECTION 01700
CONTRACT CLOSEOUT
A. Contractor shall submit written certification that the Technical Specifications, CQA Plan, and
Drawings have been reviewed, Work has been inspected, and that Work is complete and in-
accordance with the Technical Specifications, CQA Plan, and Drawings and ready for Owner's
inspection.
1.02 FINAL CLEANING
A. Contractor shall execute final cleaning prior to final inspe ti
C. Contractor shall remove waste and surplus m
construction Site.
1.03 PROJECT RECORD DOCUMENTS
A. Maintain on Site, one set of the fol l
B.
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Drawings.
Addenda.
nstruction facilities from the
D. Specifications: Legibly mark and record at each product Section a description of actual products
installed, including the following:
1. Manufacturer's name and product model and number.
2. Product substitutions or alternates utilized.
3. Changes made by Addenda and Modifications.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Contract Closeout
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5 D.201905 I 5.REV-01 Page O 1700-1 Rev-0 I May 20 I 9
E. Record Documents and Shop Drawings: Legibly mark each item to record actual construction
including:
I . Measured horizontal and vertical location of underground utilities and appurtenances
referenced to permanent surface features.
2. Measured locations of internal utilities and appurtenances concealed in construction,
referenced to visible, accessible, and permanent features of the Work.
3. Field changes of dimension and detail.
4. Details not shown on original Construction Drawings.
F. Submit record documents to the Construction Manager.
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
NOT USED.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
NOT USED.
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT
A. Contract Closeout: the measurerne
and as part ofMobilization/Demob il
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS,D 20190515,REV-Ol Page 01700-2
Contract Closeout
Rev-01 May 2019
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 02070
WELL ABANDONMENT
A. Supply all equipment, materials, and labor needed to abandon two (2) 3-inch diameter polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) casing groundwater monitoring wells as specified herein and as indicated on the
Drawings.
B. Well abandonment shall be accomplished under the direct supervision of a currently licensed water
well driller who shall be responsible for verification of the procedures and materials used.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section O 1025 -Measurement and Payment
Section 01300 -Submittals
Section O 1400 -Quality Control
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Drawings.
B.
C.
D.
1.04 SUBMITTALS
A. The Contractor s iall keep detailed drilling logs for all wells abandoned, including drilling
procedures, total depth of abandonment, depth to groundwater (if applicable), final depth of boring,
and well destruction details, including the depths of placement of all well abandonment materials.
The Contractor shall provide a minimum of 7 days advance notice prior to beginning drilling and
shall submit a list of the type and quantity of materials used for well abandonment.
B. The Contractor shall acquire all necessary permits and prepare and file a well abandonment report
as required by the State of Utah, Division of Water Rights.
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
2.01 BENTONITE
A. Bentonite shall be Volclay (powdered sodium bentonite API-13A) or as otherwise approved by the
Design Engineer.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Well Abandonment
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D.2019051S.REV-01 Page 0070-1 Rev-01 May 2019
2.02 WATER
A. Water used in the grout mixture shall be potable water or disinfected in accordance with R655-4-
9.6.5 Utah Administrative Code (UAC).
2.03 CEMENT
A. Cement shall be Portland Type I (ASTM C-150).
PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 GENERAL
A. The Contractor is responsible for obtaining all permits for the abandonment of wells and shall be
responsible for following all regulatory requirements as outh ed in the Administrative Rules for
B.
Water Well Drillers R655-4 UAC.
The Contractor shall be responsible for reviewin
groundwater well to be abandoned. The ori
abandoned are attached to the end of this Sect"·
construction boring log for the
oring logs for the well to be
3.02 DRILLING
3.03
A.
B.
A.
The Contractor shall sound and re ,
encountered), and depth of the over
f the well casing, depth to groundwater (if
B. Immediately after moving all well materials and recording the over bored depth, the slurry shall be
pressure grouted into the well borehole to 10 feet below final ground surface (bgs) (i.e. subgrade
elevations for Cells 5A and 5B).
C. The uppennost 10 feet of the abandoned well shall consist of neat cement grout or sand cement grout.
D. The Contractor shall monitor the mass, volume, and level of cement-bentonite grout placed in each well
borehole. These quantities shall be reported to the Construction Manager during the abandonment
process.
E. The cement grout or sand cement grout shall be allowed to settle. Cement grout or sand cement grout
shall be added, as necessary, until the elevation of the cured and settled cement grout or sand cement
grout confonns to the surface topography at the time of abandonment.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Well Abandonment
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5,D 201905 I 5.REV-01 Page 0070-2 Rev-0 l May 2019
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. Providing for and complying with the requirements for well abandonment set forth in this Section
will be measured as lump sum (LS); and payment will be based on the unit price provided on the
Bid Schedule.
B. The following are considered incidental to the Work:
1. Submittals.
2. Bentonite.
3. Water.
4. Cement.
5. Well permits.
6. Mobilization.
7. Drilling.
8. Grading.
9.
10. Disposal of decontamination mat
11. Disposal of drill cuttings.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Well Abandonment
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D-20190515,REV-O 1 Page 0070-3 Rev-01 May 2019
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page 0070-4
Logs
-13
Well Abandonment
Rev-0 I May 2019
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFJCA TIONSS.D.20170822 CA Page 0070-4
Logs
-13
Well Abandonment
August 2017
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION = 5579.94 FT AMSL
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION = 5578. 70 FT AMSL
10
20
30
........_ 40
I-w w LL '-"'
I 50
I-a.. w 0
60
70
80
90
100
DR-12
3-INCH DIA. PVC CAP
3" WELL CASING
t .
. .. ~-
i
. , .. ..
6 3/4-INCH BOREHOLE DIA.
AT 5' DEPTH
3-l!i0 DIA. SCH 40 FLUSH
TH ,t:.I\DED PVC CASING
T CEMENT
;;:::=::wa---COLORADO SILICA SAND PACK
t!5'>1---!:!!IIN----3-INCH DIA. SCH 40 FLUSH-THREADED
0.020 SLOT PVC SCREEN
STATIC WATER LEVEL
NOT TO SCALE
DR-12 HYDRO
GEO
CHEM,INC.
AS-BUILT WELL CONSTRUCTION SCHEMATIC
e eronoo rtl
K:\7180257A Well ConstrucHon Diagram
Date 2?#.e :212,(I Geologist h44:M"1/t
Property W-4,hMtfd 021/1 Project ,Citt«'l..,t(i.,·;a..._ _____ _
tl,'dh
PERCENTAGE COMPOSITION IMAGE
00-.-, o:,' '· e ~ _' I ' ~ • • •,
.i I ~ •,t
... , ... 'r ' -· ,... : . a,
HO I€ N 0, ... P:;.a·;..::,e:..,(..;:,z:._ __ _
PA(] E _j___ OF --L
r.O, PkOBE~-~-
T.0, Offill (OD. 0 nu,o LEVEL ____ _
TOP OF CASING ELEVATION = 5556.44 FT AMSL
GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION = 5555.11 FT AMSL
10
20
30
.,...... 40
1--w w LL ..__.,
:r: 50
l-o._ w
0
60
70
80
90
51.7'
90' TOT AL DEPTH
DR-13
3 -INCH DIA. PVC CAP
3" WELL CASING
.. ~ ..
6 3/4-INCH BOREHOLE DIA.
AT 5' DEPTH
3-INCH DIA. SCH 40 FLUSH
TH RE.AIDED PVC CASING
5/8-INCH DIA .
~1----3-INCH DIA. SCH 40 FLUSH-THREADED
85.0'
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM,INC.
0.020 SLOT PVC SCREEN
NOT TO SCALE
DR-13
AS-BUil T WELL CONSTRUCTION SCHEMATIC
1gure
~"ccF~""'i'.......,...,..'-"-'__,__ Ho I e No. -"-'D_R.'""'13"'--__ _
PERCENTAG£. COMPOSITION IMAGE
Twp. __ Rge. __
.Elev. 5595
PAGE _.l_ OF _J__
r.o. PROSE ___ _
T.D, OR/LL _'3::u,.O..i./JL_ __
FLUID LE:VEL·-----
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 02200
EARTHWORK
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation, equipment, and
incidentals necessary to perform all Earthwork. The Work shall be carried out as specified herein
and in accordance with the Drawings.
B. The Work shall include, but not be limited to excavating, blasting, ripping, trenching, hauling,
placing, moisture conditioning, backfilling, compacting and grading. Earthwork shall conform to
the dimensions, lines, grades, and sections shown on the Drawings or as directed by the Construction
Manager.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02220 -Subgrade Preparation
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Drawings
B. Latest version of ASTM International (AST
ASTMD422
ASTM D 6938
C.
1.04 QUALIFIC
A.
1.05 SUBMITT ALS
r t paction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified
-lb-ft/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3))
eU10d for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil-
clear Methods (Shallow Depth)
urvey for Cells 5A and 5B (Attached Herein).
Site superintendent for the earthworks operations shall have supervised the
1 three earthwork construction projects, in accordance with Section 01010,
A. The Contractor shall submit to the Construction Manager a baseline survey to the limits of the work.
The baseline survey shall be prepared by a Utah licensed professional land surveyor and shall form
the basis for establishing pay quantities.
B. The Contractor shall submit to the Construction Manager a description of equipment and methods
proposed for excavation, and fill placement and compaction construction at least 14 days prior to
the start of activities covered by this Section.
C. !frock blasting is the chosen rock removal technique, the Contractor shall submit to the Construction
Manager a blast plan describing blast methods to remove rock to proposed grade. The blast plan
shall include a pre-blast survey, blast schedule, seismic monitoring records, blast design and
diagrams, and blast safety. The Contractor shall submit the plan to the Construction Manager at least
21 days prior to blast.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Earthwork
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5,D 2019061 LREV-01 Page 02200-1 Rev-01 May 2019
D. If the Work of this Section is interrupted for reasons other than inclement weather, the Contractor
shall notify the Construction Manager a minimum of 48 hours prior to the resumption of Work.
E. If foreign borrow materials are proposed to be used for any earthwork material on this project, the
Contractor shall provide the Construction Manager information regarding the source of the material.
In addition, the Contractor shall provide the Construction Manager an opportunity to obtain samples
for conformance testing 14 days prior to delivery of foreign borrow materials to the Site. If
conformance testing fails to meet these Specifications, the Contractor shall be responsible for
reimbursing the Owner for additional conformance testing costs.
F. The Contractor shall submit as-built Record Drawing electronic files and data, to the Construction
Manager, within 7 days of project substantial completion, in accordance with this Section.
1.06 QUALITY ASSURANCE
A. The Contractor shall ensure that the materials and methods used for Earthwork meet the
requirements of the Drawings and this Section. Any material or method that does not conform to
these documents, or to alternatives approved in writing by ti ~ onstructio11 Manager will be rejected
and shall be repaired, or removed and replaced, by the o · ractor at no additional expense to the
Owner.
B. field/laboratory conformance
testing required by the Contract Documen This monitoring o testing, including random
conformance testing of construction rnateri sand c npleted Work, will be performed by the CQA
Consultant. Ifnonconformances or other defic' Gi "3re found in the materials or completed Work,
the Contractor will be required to e. air the d ei ncy or replace the deficient materials at no
additional cost to the Owner.
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
2.01 MATERIAL
A.
B. nsidered as rock, boulders, or detached pieces of solid rock less than
"tied as common excavation.
C. s ,all consist of on-site soil obtained from excavation or owner provided
from rock larger than 6 inches, organic or other deleterious material.
D. fa.II hard, compacted, or cemented materials that require blasting or the use of
ripping and excavating equipment larger than defined for common excavation. The excavation and
removal of isolated boulders or rock fragments larger than I cubic yard encountered in materials
otherwise conforming to the definition of common excavation shall be classified as rock excavation.
The presence of isolated boulders or rock fragments larger than I cubic yard is not in itself sufficient
to cause to change the classification of the surrounding material.
E. Rippable Soil and Rock, common excavation: Material that can be ripped at more than 250 cubic
yards per hour for each Caterpillar D9N dozer ( or equivalent) with a single shank ripper attachment.
F. Loose material: Soil and rock material below finished grade elevations that was blasted or loosened
by ripping or is naturally loose.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Earthwork
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIF1CATJONS5.D 20190515.REV-01 Page 02200-2 Rev-01 May 2019
2.02 EQUIPMENT
A. The Contractor shall furnish, operate, and maintain compaction equipment as is necessary to
produce the required in-place soil density and moisture content.
B. The Contractor shall furnish, operate and maintain tank trucks, pressure distributors, or other
equipment designed to apply water uniformly and in controlled quantities.
C. The Contractor shall furnish, operate, and maintain miscellaneous equipment such as earth
excavating equipment, earth hauling equipment, and other equipment, as necessary for Earthwork
construction.
D. The Contractor shall be responsible for cleaning up all fuel, oil, or other spills, at the expense of the
Contractor, and to the satisfaction of the Construction Manager.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 FAMILIARIZATION
3.02
A. Prior to implementing any of the Work in this
familiar with the Site, the Site conditions, and
related Sections.
I.'. falling within this and other
B. Inspection:
C.
A.
B.
C.
D.
I.
2.
·ock' · formation is provided in the attached trench logs (Exhibit I). In
ata obtained during site seismic refraction surveys is attached.
I excavate materials to the limits and grades shown on the Drawings.
The Contractor shall excavate top soil (top 6 to 12 inches of existing ground) to the limits of the
work and stockpile as directed by Construction Manager.
The Contractor shall rip, blast, and/or mechanically remove rock 6-inches below final grades shown
on the Drawings.
The Contractor shall excavate loose soil/rock below final grades shown on the Drawings until
competent soil/rock surface is achieved to allow construction of engineered fill.
E. All excavated material not used as fill shall be stockpiled as shown on the Drawings and in
accordance with Subpart 3.05 of this Section.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction -arthwork
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFJCATJONSS.D.20190515.REV-OJ Page 02200-3 Rev-01 May 2019
3.03 ROCK EXCAVATION
A. The Contractor shall remove rock by ripping, drilling, or blasting, or as approved by Construction
Manager.
B. Requirements for Blasting:
l. The Contractor shall arrange for a pre-blast survey of nearby buildings, berms, or other
structures that may potentially be at risk from blasting damage. The survey method used shall
be acceptable to the Contractor's insurance company. The Contractor shall be responsible for
any damage resulting from blasting. The preblast survey shall be made available for review
three weeks before any blasting begins. Pre-blast surveys shall be completed by a practicing
civil engineer registered in the State of Utah, who has experience in rock excavation and
geotechnical design.
2. The Contractor shall submit for review the proposed methods and sequence of blasting for
rock excavations. The Contractor shall identify the I umber depth, and spacing of holes;
stemming and number and type of delays; methods · ontrolling overbreak/overblasting at
excavation limits, procedures for monitoring th ts and recording information for each
shot; proposed depth of cover soil and overbl s g, n other data that may be required to
control the blasting.
3. Blasting shall be done in accordance v i
for explosives and firing of blasts. c
4.
5. blish appro i te maximum limit for peak particle velocity for each structure or facility
that djacenl" t, • or near blast sites. Base maximum limits on expected sensitivity of each
or fa · ity to blast induced vibrations and federal, state, or local regulatory
requiren ts. n areas of blasting within 100 feet from the top of the existing berms, the
blasting pe I< particle velocities (PPV) shall not exceed 2 inches per second.
6. The Contractor shall discontinue any method of blasting which leads to
overshooting/overblasting or is dangerous to the berms surrounding the existing pond
structures.
7. The Contractor shall have sufficient cover soil to provide safety and minimize fly rock while
minimizing the quantity of fill material impacted with oversized rock and boulders.
8. The Contractor shall minimize overshooting/overblasting. All loose material shall be
removed prior to placing engineered fill.
9. The Contractor shall install a blast warning sign to display warning signals. Sign shall
indicate the following:
a. Five (5) minutes before blast: Three (3) long sounds ofairhorn or siren
b. Immediately before blast: Three (3) short sounds ofairhorn or siren
c. All clear signal after blast: one (1) long sound of airhorn or siren
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Earthwork
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICATJONSS.D.20190515 REV-01 Page 02200-4 Rev-01 May 2019
3.04 FILL
A. Prior to fill placement, areas to receive fill shall be cleared and grubbed.
B. The fill material shall be placed to the lines and grades shown on the Drawings.
C. Soil used for fill shall meet the requirements of Subpart 2.01 of this Section.
D. Soil used for fill shall be placed in a loose lift that results in a compacted lift thickness of no greater
8 inches and compacted to 90% of the maximum density at a moisture content of between -3% and
+3% ofoptimum moisture content, as determined by ASTM D 1557-12el (Rev-01).
E. The Contractor shall utilize compaction equipment suitable and sufficient for achieving the soil
compaction requirements.
F. During soil wetting or drying, the material shall be regularly disced or otherwise mixed so that
uniform moisture conditions in the appropriate range are obtai ed.
3.05 STOCKPILING
3.06
A.
B. Separate soil stockpiles shall be constructed
C. !:Vertical) or other slope approved by the
D.
A.
.I.
2.
O}! tracking lei to the slope with a dozer or other means
d t y during periods when fill is taken from the
porary rosion and sediment control measures (i.e. silt
.ager around stockpile areas.
an tails of quality control testing for Earthwork are provided below.
rmed by the CQA Consultant. The Contractor shall take this testing
planning the construction schedule.
st1 ltant will perform conformance tests on placed and compacted fill to evaluate
compliance ith these Specifications. The dry density and moisture content of the soil will
be measured in-situ with a nuclear moisture-density gauge in accordance with
ASTM D 6938. The frequency of testing will be one test per 500 cubic yards of soil placed.
A special testing frequency will be used by the CQA Consultant when visual observations of
construction performance indicate a potential problem. Additional testing will be considered
when:
a. The rollers slip during rolling operation;
b. The lift thickness is greater than specified;
c. The fill is at improper and/or variable moisture content;
d. Fewer than the specified number of roller passes are made;
e. Dirt-clogged rollers are used to compact the material;
f. The rollers do not have optimum ballast; or
g. The degree of compaction is doubtful.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Earthwork
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIF1CA TIONSS.D.20190611,REV-Dl Page 02200-5 Rev-01 May 2019
3. During construction, the frequency of testing will be increased by the Construction Manager
in the following situations:
a. Adverse weather conditions;
b. Breakdown of equipment;
c. At the start and finish of grading;
d. If the material fails to meet Specifications; or
e. The work area is reduced.
B. Defective Areas:
1. If a defective area is discovered in the Earthwork, the CQA Consultant will evaluate the
extent and nature of the defect. If the defect is indicated by an unsatisfactory test result, the
CQA Consultant will determine the extent of the defective area by additional tests,
observations, a review of records, or other means t the Construction Manager deems
appropriate. If the defect is related to adverse j onditions, such as overly wet soils or
surface desiccation, the CQA Site Manager sh 1· e i e he limits and nature of the defect.
2. Contractor shall correct the
3.
deficiency to the satisfaction of the
additional Work in the area until th
defect.
Additional testing may be pe
been corrected. This addili
allowed in the area of deficien · y
borne by the Conti"'
.A Consultant to verify that the defect has
3.07 SURVEY CONTROL
A.
3.08 CONSTRUCT ,
3.09
A. rm the Earthwork construction to within ±0.1 vertical feet of elevations
A. For purposes of payment on Earthwork quantities, the Contractor shall conduct a comprehensive as-
built survey that complies with this Section.
B. The Contractor shall produce complete electronic as-built Record Drawings in conformance with
the requirements set forth in this Section. This electronic file shall be provided to the Construction
Manager for verification. Surveys shall be submitted for existing topography, top of rock, base of
excavation, and top of fill.
C. The Contractor shall produce an electronic boundary file that accurately conforms to the project site
boundary depicted on the plans or as modified during construction by approved change order. The
electronic file shall be provided to the Construction Manager for verification prior to use in any
earthwork computations or map generation.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Earthwork
YSC0634. TECHNlCALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D.20190515.REV-O 1 Page 02200-6 Rev-OJ May 2019
D. As-built survey data shall be collected throughout the project as indicated in these Specifications.
This data shall be submitted in hard-copy and American Standard Code for Information Interchange
(ASCII) format. ASCII format shall include: point number, northing and easting, elevations, and
descriptions of point. The ASCII format shall be as follows:
1. PPPP,NNNNNN.NNN,EEEEEE.EEE,ELEV.XXX,Description
a. Where:
• P -point number
• N-Northing
• E-Easting
• ELEV .XXX -Elevation
• Description -description of the point
3.10 PROTECTION OF WORK
A. The Contractor shall use all means necessary to protect competed Work of this Section.
B. At the end of each day, the Contractor shall verify that
C.
promotes drainage of surface water away from the a rom finished Work. If threatening
weather conditions are forecast, soil surfaces shal e eal-ro 1 a ta minimum to protect finished
Work.
In the event of damage to Work, the C
satisfaction of the Construction Manager, at t
1 I make repairs and replacements to the
se of the Contractor.
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. All earthwork quantiti
approval. The indeP,
procedures as those
ndently verified by the Construction Manager prior to
the Construction Manager shall utilize the same basic
B. buried (or otherwise obstructed) earthwork shall be surveyed and
ses to enable timely verification by the Construction Manager.
C. 'ng with the requirements set forth in this Section for Soil Excavation will
(LS) and payment will be based on the unit price provided on the Bid
D. Providing for and complying with the requirements set forth in this Section for Rock Excavation
will be measured as lump sum (LS) and payment will be based on the unit price provided on the Bid
Schedule.
E. Providing for and complying with the requirements set forth in this Section for Fill will be measured
as lump sum (LS) and payment will be based on the unit price provided on the Bid Schedule.
F. The following are considered incidental to the work:
• Submittals.
• Quality Control.
• Material samples, sampling, and testing.
• Excavation.
• Blasting, ripping, and hammering.
• Loading, and hauling.
• Scarification.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Earthwork
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515.REV-Ol Page 02200-7 Rev-01 May 2019
• Screening.
• Layout survey.
• Rejected material removal, retesting, handling, and repair.
• Temporary haul roads.
• Erosion control.
• Dust control.
• Spill cleanup.
• Placement, compaction, and moisture conditioning.
• Stockpiling.
• Record survey.
[END OF SECTION)
Cell 5A aDd SB Lining System onstruction Earthwork
YSC0634 TECHNJCALSPECIFICATIONS5 ,D 20190515,REV-Ol Page 02200-8 Rev-0 I May 2019
TABLE 02200-
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Earthwork
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECJFICA TIONS5.D-201905 I 5 .REV-OJ Page 02200-9 Rev-01 May 2019
Survey Number SurveyL End Points Survey Line
I Direction Latitude Longitude
Fwd SL-12--01--0IF N37 52603 W109.51611 S32E
SL-12-01-0IR N37,52554 W109,51566 Rev
N32W
Fwd SL-12--02--0IF N37.52603 Wl09 51611 N32W
Rev SL-12-02-0IR N37.52647 WI09 51649 S32E
Fwd TPU--02 N37 52600 WI09 51614 N30W
Fwd SL-12--03-0IF N37 52499 Wl09 51506 S30W
SL-12-03-0IR N37.52447 WI09 51466 Rev
N30E
TPIZ-04 N37.52507 Wl09.51506 Fwd
N32W
Fwd SL-12-04-0IF N37 52546 W109 51749 S75E
Rev SL-12--04--01R N37.52532 W109 51675 N75W
Fwd TPIZ-01 N37 52546 W109 51749 S6SE
SL-12-05-0IF N37.52384 W109.51791 "4"--/;iil
SL-12--05-0IR N37 52416 W109 51729 ~~ .. w
TPIZ-07 N37,52388 W109.51793 !o~
I Fwd -~
SL-12-06-01 F N37 52438 W109 51460 S30E
Rev SL-12-06-0IR N37 52388 WI09 51418 N30W
Fwd TPIZ-06 N37 52408 Wt09 51434 N30W
Fwd SL-12-07-0IF N37 52438 WI09 51460 S30E
Rev SL-12--07--0IR N37.52338 Wl09 51372 N30W
TABLE 02200-1
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS -
Cells SA and SB
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Mill
Blanding, Utah
Cell (SA or 58) Approximate Depth Range1 Seismic Velocity Range
(feet bgs) (Feet per Second)
Oto4 1287 to 1392
SA 4 to 36 4944 to 5053
>36 6195 to 7403
SA Oto6 1312 to 2563
>6 5358 to 6372
0 to 4 A 1341 to 1408
SA 4to 14 ~457to5578
>14 ...,, 6512 to 6802
Oto 8 ,111/L 1571102191
SA 8 to 12 ~.,... 4245 to 5672
>12 / I" ~538to7012
SA -_.;· ,.
Oto Y, 1482 11)JtiS
SA Sr.,{2Jf' .. :) 3866 to 4754 >a , .. ,.,· 6087 to 6492
SA Oto~ 1804 to 2078
>6 " ( 4854 to 5966
SA ~~~
\ " Old'.,-_ --1059to 1317
SA .. ,l1a/fs ._ 3264 to 4564 .......... ~25 5918 to 6499 _# )1 W..OtoS 1052 to 1681
l ~tol4 2998 to 5299
',;.J4 5663 to 7907
~ -.. :::i"'-
~~ Oto9 1137to 1691
>9 6235 to 7003
)\ "' Oto 7 1684 to 1939
>7 6281 to 8285
~A I
~ Oto 3 2083 to 2347
SA 3 to 46 4826 to 4905
I
0 to4 1489 to 2965
SA >4 4955 to 6415
SA I
Oto4 1488 to 2035
SA 4to 19 4757 to 5046
>19 6696
Oto4 1308 to 2080
SA 4 to 34 4899to 5169
>34 8444 to 8736
Geosyntec t>
consulmm,;
Excavatability Assessment3 Subsurface Conditions
Rippable
Rippable
Riooable
Rippable
Riooable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
0-5.25 IT Residual Soil
5.25-6 75 FT Weathered Sandstone 6 75 tc
7,0 Ff Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
10-U H Residual ~OIi
1.5-7 5 FT Weathered Sandstone
7.5-8.0 FT Shale Layer
!12 f\ FTD.akQ~nE'
Riooable
Rippable
Riooable
Rippable
Rippable
Marginal
0-5 FT Residual Soil
5.0-6 75 FT Weathered Sandstone
6. 75 to 7.0 IT Dakota Sandstone
Riooable
Ripoable
Riooable
Marginal
0-7.0FTResidual Soil
7.0-8.5 FT Weathered Sandstone
8.5-9 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Riooable
Riooable
0-2.0 FT Residual Soil
2 0-3 5 FT Weathered Sandstone
3 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
I Riooable
Ripoable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Marginal
Survey Number Suo,v1 End Points Sunrey Line
Direction Latitude Longitude
Fwd TP12-09 N37.52294 WI09.51320 N20E
Fwd SL-12-08-0IF N37 52443 Wl09 51648 N62E
Rev SL-12-0~IR N37 52477 Wl09.5\582 S62W
Fwd TP12-05 N37 52443 W!09 51621 N40E
Fwd TP12-08 N37 52326 W109 51534 NlOW
Fwd SL-12-09-0IF N37 52544 W109 51392 N65E
Rev SL-12-09-0IR N37 52570 W109 51324 S65W
Fwd TP12-03 N37 52559 Wl09.51355 S65W
Fwd TP\2-10 N37 52464 Wl09 51260 N88W
SL-12-10-0IF N37 524778 W109 50861 Fwd
S68W
N37 52452 WI09 50928 Rev SL-12-IO-OIR ,a~
TP12-12 N37.52479 WI09.50859 ~u w
SL-12-11-0IF N37 525045 WI 09,507928 ~
SL-12-11-0IR I N37 524778 Wl09.50861 Rev~ S6SW
Fwd SL-12-12-0IF N37 52419 WI09 5l025 N70E
Rev SL-12-12-0IR N37 52441 WI09 50956 S70W
Fwd TP12-13 N37 52419 W\09 51025 S70W
Fwd SL-12-13-0\F N37.5249 W109 51025 S70W
Rev SL-12-13-0IR N37 52389 WI09 51102 N70E
TABLE 02200-1
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS -
Cells SA and SB
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Mill
Blandin_&, Utah
Cell (SA or 58) Approximate Depth Range2 Seismic Velocity Range
(feet bgs) (Feet per Second)
SA/SB -
o to 5 I061 to 1283
SA 5 to 17 3354 to 4800
> 17 & 6025
0 to 7 ... 1521 to 1732
SA >7 ~ 4927 to 5849 -SA -.~ "' -
5A ·/ ' oiosr .H 'l> 1211 to 1207
5A >'S.,' --5570 to 6148
"!"""" ,Ii/II,
Oto 6 ~-1269to 1639
SA . .-.. 6 to 17 ,, 4661 to 6630
\ I'.'.. ~17 .... 7230 to 7274
5A ,~~~
rA~ \v(
1((5B )i~ \ <>,to 6 1442 to 1904 ,~ 5620 to 7611 -.,.· ~,< ---0 to 4 1835 to 2395
>4 6387 to 7509
1'8 ~ -
)} 0 to 6 1157to 1227
>6 7036 to 7052
~ SB
0 to 10 1411 to 1480
>10 7343 to 8088
o to4 1061 to 1488
5B 4 to 17 3331 to 4947
>17 8999 to 9761
0 to 3 1672 to 1955
5B 3 to 18 4721 to 5496
>18 6643 to 7372
5B
0 to 6 1349 to 3557
5B >6 7286 to 9352
Oto 5 1138 to 1248
5B >5 6186 to 8977
Geosyntec0
C:OJ'l"illJltant"'i
Excavatability Assessment3 Subsurface Conditions
0-5,5 FT Residual Soil
5 5-6_5 FT Weathered Sandstone
6 5-7 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Riooable
Riooable
Riooable
Riooable
Riooable
0-4 5 FT Residual Soil
14,5-6 5 FT Weathered Sandstone
6 5-7 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
0-6 0 FT Residual Soil
6 0-7 5 FT Weathered Sandstone
7 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Riooable
Riooable
Rinnable
Rinnable
Rmnable
0-5 5 FT Residual Soil
5 5-7 0 FT Weathered Sandstone
7_0 FT Dakota Sandstone
0-4 5 FT Residual Soil
4_5-9_0 FT Weathered Sandstone
9_0-9_5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Riooable
Manzinal
Riooable
Mare:inal
0-6.5 FT Residual Soil
6 5-7 5 FT Weathered Sandstone
7 5-8 0 FT Dakota Sandstone
Riooable
Riooable
I
Riooable
Marginal
Rippable
Ripnable
Non-Rinn able
Rippable
Ripnable
Riooable
0-0 5 FT Residual Soil -0 5-1 0 FT Weathered Sandstone
1 0-2.0 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Non-Rippable
Riooable
Mareinal
TABLE 02200-1
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS -
Cells SA and SB
Ener,:y Fuels, White Mesa Mill
Blandin_g_, Utah
Survey Number Survey1 End Points Survey Line Cell (SA or SB) Approximate Depth Range2 Seismic Velocity Range
Direction (foet bgs) (Feet per Second) Latitude Longitude
Fwd Oto 6 1098 to 1775
SL-12-14-0IF N37.52330 WI09.51234 SB 610 28 6361 to 6041 N62E >28 8046 to 8964
Oto 6 1369 to 1419
SL-12-14-0IR N37.52361 WI09.51167 Rev SB >6 7171 to 7762 S62W -
Fwd # TP12-IS N37 52361 WI09 51167 S60W SB -
Fwd ·' "" TP12-17 N37 52253 WI09 51065 SB N8E
Fwd Oto 8 ,llttl; 't.411'io 3030
SL-12-IS-OIF N37 52542 WI09 51112 SB >8 ,,, 634!ilD~8 S20E ,,, '.>
Rev 0,IO"rJ, ~' ') 1305 to 1554
SL-12-!S-O!R N37 52493 Wl09 51077 SB 9 ia..16'-,.,.,
S30E >16,..,,_~·
Fwd ' TPI2-11 N37 52512 WI09 51098 N25W SB r.::--.-. .
N37 52550 W109 50965 Fwd SB \\-)~> TP12-19 NISW
Fwd /R\
'vo:i,fo
SL-12-16-0IF N37,52330 WI09,50919 \ ,€to 22 N32W '\>22
SL-12-16-0IR N37 52380 WI09 50957 Rev ../,l'sB )-' , O.to6
S32E '" <"(;
Fwd ~y -.::::::? .. TP12-I6 N37.52329 W109.509l3 S40E
"",---
~~-'
Oto4
SL-12-17-0IF N37.52330 W109,50919 /[:VJ!! 4 to 37 Si2E >37
~)t.'' ), Oto 5
SL-12-17-0IR N37.52280 WI09,50872 5 to 22 '~ >22
TPl2-18 N37 52223 WI09 50835 ~ N3: ' #,a
Fwd
.. , Oto 5
SL-12-IS-41IF N37.52431 Wl09.50755 E-W SB 5 to 26
>26
Oto4
SL-12-18-0IR N37,52430 W109 50829 Rev SB 4 to 20 E-W >20
Fwd TP12-14 N37 52431 Wl09.50749 SB S88W
Notes;
I -Surveyed end point of refraction survey lines coordinates in Latitude/Longitude decimal degree World Geodetic System (WGS) 84 Data collected in field
2 -Calculated depth of seismic refractor based on P-wave first arrival times using Snells Law.
3 -Excavatability assessment based on correlations between seismic wave velocities and rippability using a Single Shank No 9 ripper on a D9N dozer (Caterpillar, 2006)
RS -Residual Soil
wxs -weathered sand.stone
Kds -Cretaceous Dakota Sand.stone
3197 to 4279
7886 to 8107
1388
2951 to55l7
9648
1215 to 1816
6435 to 6930
1391 to 2336
4801 to 4874
7554
1694to 1730
4762 to 5491
6479 to 6483
-
1090to 1379
5202 to 6893
7491 to 10938
1361 to 1420
5110 to 5363
7861 to 11264
Geosyntec c,
can..."IJJlmnT:'!i
Excavatability Assessment1 Subsurface Conditions
Riooable
Riooable
Marginal
Riooable
Mare:ioal
0-5 5 FT Residual Soil
5,5-6 0 FT Weathered Sandstone
6. 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
0-0 5 FT Residual Soil
0,5-2 0 FT Weathered Sandstone
1.0-3.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Riooable
Mar'?.inal
Riooable
Riooable
Mareinal
0-3.5 FT Residual Soil
3.5-l l .OFT Weathered Sandstone
II 0-12,0 FT Dakota Sandstone
0-l 5 FT Residual Soil
1.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Riooable
Non-Riooable
Riooable
Ripoable
0-0.5 FT Residual Soil
0 5-6 0 FT Weathered Sand.stone
6 0-6 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Mare:inal
Rionable
Riooable
R;poable
0-4 5 FT Residual Soil
4.5-6 0 FT Weathered Sandstone
6.0-6 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Riooable
Riooable
Non-Riooable
Riooable
Rippable
Non-Rippable
0-4 5 FT Residual Soil
4.5-7 5 FT Weathered Sandstone
7.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
SECTION 02220
SUBGRADE PREPARATION
PART 1-GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation, equipment, and
incidentals necessary to perform all Subgrade Preparation. The Work shall be carried out as
specified herein and in accordance with the Drawings and the Construction Quality Assurance
(CQA) Plan.
B. The Work shall include, but not be limited to placement, moisture conditioning, compaction, and
grading of subgrade soil and construction of geosynthetics anchor trench. Earthwork shall conform
to the dimensions, lines, grades, and sections shown on the D ·awings or as directed by the Design
Engineer.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02200 -Earthwork
Section 02270 -Geomembrane
1.03 REFERENCES
1.04
A. Drawings
B. Site CQA Plan
C.
ASTMD422
(R :v-01) Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified
(56,000 ft-lbr/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3))
Standard Test Method for In-Place Density and Water Content of Soil
and Rock In-Place by Nuclear Methods (Shallow Depth)
A. The Contractor shall ensure that the materials and methods used for subgrade preparation meet the
requirements of the Drawings and this Section. Any material or method that does not conform to
these documents, or to alternatives approved in writing by the Design Engineer will be rejected and
shall be repaired, or removed and replaced, by the Contractor at no additional expense to the Owner.
PART 2-PRODUCTS
2.01 SUBGRADE SOIL
A. Subgrade surface shall be free of protrusions larger than 0,..10.5 (Rev-01) inches. Any such observed
particles shall be removed prior to placement of geosynthetics.
B. Subgrade surface shall be free of large desiccation cracks (ie, larger than 1/.i inch) at the time of
geosynthetics placement.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction ubgmde Prepnration
SC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS D 20190611 REV-OJ Page 02220-1 Rev-01 May 2019
C. Sub grade soil shall consist of on-site soils that are free of particles greater than 3 inches in longest
dimension, deleterious, organic, and/or other soil impacts that can damage the overlying liner
system.
D. The subgrade surface shall be firm and unyielding, with no abrupt elevation changes, ice, or standing
water.
E. The subgrade surface shall be smooth and free of vegetation, sharp-edged rock, stones, sticks,
construction debris, and other foreign matter that could contact the geosynthetics.
F. At a minimum, the subgrade surface shall be rolled with a smooth-drum compactor of sufficient
weight to remove any excessive wheel ruts greater than I-inch or other abrupt grade changes.
2.02 ANCHOR TRENCH BACKFILL
A. Anchor trench backfill is the soil material that is placed in the anchor trench, as shown on the
Drawings.
B. Where rocks are included in the anchor trench backfill, tbeYi hall be mixed with suitable excavated
materials to eliminate voids.
C.
2.03 EQUIPMENT
A. The Contractor shall furnish, ope ate and
necessary to produce smooth surfa
soil density in the anchor trenches.
B. d maintain tank trucks, pressure distributors, or other
lly and in controlled quantities for dust control and for
rench backfill.
C. nsibl.e for cleaning up all fuel, oil, or other spills, at the expense of the
ion of the Construction Manager.
PART 3 -EXECUTJO
3.01
A. Prior to implemer 1ng any of the work in this Section, the Contractor shall become thoroughly
familiar with the Site, the Site conditions, and all portions of the work falling within this and other
related Sections.
B. The Contractor shall provide for the protection of work installed in accordance with other Sections.
In the event of damage to other work, the Contractor shall make repairs and replacements to the
satisfaction of the Construction Manager, at the expense of the Contractor.
3.02 SUBGRADE SOIL SURFACE
A. The Contractor shall remove vegetation and roots to a minimum depth of 4-inches below ground
surface in all areas where geosynthetic materials are to be installed.
B. Contractor shall grade subgrade soil to be uniform in slope, free from ruts, mounds, or depressions.
C. Prior to tertiary geomembrane installation, the subgrade surface shall be proof-rolled with
appropriate compaction equipment to confirm subgrade stability.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Subgrade _Preparation
SC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02220-2 Rev-01 May 2019
3.03 TRENCH EXCAVATION
A. The Contractor shall excavate the anchor trench to the limits and grades shown on the Drawings.
B. Excavated anchor trench materials shall be returned as backfill for the anchor trench and compacted.
C. Material not suitable for anchor trench backfill shall be relocated as directed by the Construction
Manager
3.04 TRENCH BACKFILL
A. The anchor trench backfill shall be placed to the lines and grades shown on the Drawings.
B. Soil used for anchor trench backfill shall meet the requirements of Subpart 2.02 of this Section.
C. Soil used for anchor trench backfill shall be placed in loose lifts of no more than 12 inches and
compacted to 90% of maximum dry density per ASTM D 1557-12el (Rev-01). Backfill shall be
within -3% to +3% of optimum moisture content. The max: , m permissible pre-compaction soil
clod size is 6 inches.
D. The Contractor shall compact
Construction Manager.
E. The Contractor shall utilize compaction e
compaction requirements.
F.
3.05 SURVEY CONTROL
A.
B.
3.06 PROTECTlO .
A.
eys for all completed surfaces for purposes of Record
1inimum, survey points shall be obtained at grade breaks, top of slope,
ate1·ial type.
B. At the end of each ay, the Contractor shall verify that the entire work area is left in a state that
promotes drainage of surface water away from the area and from finished work.
C. In the event of damage to Work, the Contractor shall make repairs and replacements to the
satisfaction of the Construction Manager, at the expense of the Contractor.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Subgrade Preparation
SC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190611 REV-01 Page 02220-3 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. Providing for and complying with the requirements for subgrade preparation will be measured as
lump sum (LS) and payment will be based on the unit price as provided on the Bid Schedule.
B. Providing for and complying with the requirements for anchor trench excavation and backfill shall
be measured on a lineal foot (LF) basis and payment will be based on the unit price as provided on
the Bid Schedule.
C. The following are considered incidental to the work:
• Submittals .
• Quality Control.
• Material samples .
• Screening .
• Excavation, loading, and hauling .
• Temporary haul roads .
• Layout survey .
• Rejected material removal, testing, haulin
• Erosion Control
• Dust control.
• Spill Clean-up
• Placement, compaction, and moisture co,
• Stockpiling .
• Record survey .
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Subgrade Preparation
SC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS.D.20190515 REV-01 Page 02220-4 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 1-GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 02225
DRAINAGE AGGREGATE
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation, equipment, and
incidentals necessary for the installation of Drainage Aggregate. The work shall be carried out as
specified herein and in accordance with the Drawings and the site Construction Quality Assurance
(CQA) Plan.
B. The work shall include, but not be limited to, delivery, offloading, storage, and placement of
Drainage Aggregate (aggregate).
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02616 -PVC Pipe
Section 02770 -Geomembrane
Section 02771 -Geotextile
Section 02773 -Geonet
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Drawings
B.
C.
1.04 SUBMITT ALS
· tl r Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates
e 10d for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)
ard Test Method for Insoluble Residue in Carbonate Aggregates
A. The Contractor shall submit to the Construction Manager for approval, at least 7 days prior to the
start of construction, Certificates of Compliance for proposed aggregate materials. Certificates of
Compliance shall include, at a minimum, typical gradation, insoluable residue content,
representative sample, and source of aggregate materials.
B. The Contractor shall submit to the Construction Manager a list of equipment and technical
information for equipment proposed for use in placing the aggregate material in accordance with
this Section.
1.05 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (CQA) MONITORING
A. The Contractor shall be aware of and accommodate all monitoring and field/laboratory conformance
testing required by the CQA Plan. This monitoring and testing, including random conformance
testing of construction materials and completed work, will be performed by the CQA Consultant. If
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Drainage Aggregate
YSC0634.TECHNJCALSPECIFICATIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02225-1 Rev-01 May 2019
nonconformances or other deficiencies are found in the materials or completed work, the Contractor
will be required to repair the deficiency or replace the deficient materials.
PART 2-PRODUCTS
2.01 MATERIALS
A. Aggregate shall meet the requirements specified in ASTM C 33 and shall not contain limestone.
Aggregate shall have a minimum permeability of 1x10-1 cm/sec when tested in accordance with
ASTM D 2434. The requirements of the Aggregate are presented below:
Maximum Particle Size Percent Finer
1 -inch 100
V,i -inch 0 to 5
No. 200 Sieve
B. Carbonate loss shall be no greater than 10 percent b
with ASTM D 3042.
2.02 EQUIPMENT
A. The Contractor shall furnish, operate, and , auhng, placing, and grading equipment as
necessary for aggregate placement.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 FAMILIARIZATION
A.
B.
1.
2.
3.02 PLACEMENT
hall carefully inspect the installed work of all other Sections and verify
complete to the point where the installation of the work specified in this
,operly commence without adverse impact.
If the Co 1'lractor has any concerns regarding the installed work of other Sections, the
Construction Manager shall be notified in writing prior to commencing work. Failure to
notify the Construction Manager or commencement of the work of this Section will be
construed as Contractor's acceptance of the related work of all other Sections.
A. Place after underlying geosynthetic installation is complete, including construction quality control
(CQC) and CQA work.
B. Place to the lines, grades, and dimensions shown on the Drawings.
C. The subgrade of the aggregate consists of a geotextile overlying a geomembrane. The Contractor
shall avoid creating large wrinkles (greater than 6-inches high), tearing, puncturing, folding, or
damaging in any way the geosynthetic materials during placement of the aggregate material.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Drainage Aggregate
YSC0634 ,TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5,D.20190515.REV-O 1 Page 02225-2 Rev-01 May 2019
D. Damage to the geosynthetic liner system caused by the Contractor or his representatives shall be
repaired by the Geosynthetic Installer, at the expense of the Contractor.
E. No density or moisture requirements are specified for placement of the aggregate material.
3.03 FIELD TESTING
A. The minimum frequency and details of conformance testing are provided below. This testing will
be performed by the CQA Consultant. The Contractor shall take this testing frequency into account
in planning the construction schedule.
1. Aggregates conformance testing:
a. particle-size analyses conducted in accordance with ASTM C 136 at a frequency of
one per source; and
b. permeability tests conducted in accorda
one per source.
3.04 SURVEY CONTROL
A. The Contractor shall perform all surveys
Drawings.
3.05 PROTECTION OF WORK
A.
B.
4.01 GENERAL
A. ·ng with the requirements set forth in this Section for Drainage Aggregate
U.i ntal to ti VC pipe, and payment will be based on the unit price for PVC pipe
edule.
B.
• Submittals.
• Quality Control.
• Material samples, sampling, and testing.
• Excavation, loading, and hauling.
• Placing and grading.
• Layout survey.
• Rejected material.
• Rejected material removal, re-testing, handling, and repair.
• Mobilization.
[ END OF SECTION ]
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Drainage Aggregate
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFJCA TIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02225-3 Rev-0 I May 2019
PART 1-GENERAL
SECTION 02616
POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) PIPE
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation, and equipment
necessary to install perforated and solid wall polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Schedule 40 pipe and fittings,
as shown on the Drawings and in accordance with the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02225 -Drainage Aggregate
Section 02270 -Geomembrane
Section 02771 -Geotextile
Section 02772 -Geonet
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Drawings.
B. Site CQA Plan.
C.
ASTMD 1784
AS
Stand Specification for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Pipe Fittings,
11.e40.
ASTM D 2564 Standard Specification for Solvent Cements for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC)
Plastic Pipe and Fittings.
ASTM D 2774 Practice for Underground Installation of Thermoplastic Pressure Piping.
ASTM D 2855 Standard Practice for Making Solvent-Cemented Joints with Poly (Vinyl
Chloride) (PVC) Pipe and Fittings.
ASTM F 656 Standard Specification for Primers for Use in Solvent Cement Joints of Poly
(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Pipe and Fittings.
onstruction Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) .Pipe
YSC0634,TECHNJCALSPECIFICATIONS5.D.2DI90515.REV-Ol Page 02616-1 Rev-OJ May 2019
1.04 SUBMITT ALS
A. The Contractor shall submit to the Construction Manager for approval, at least 7 days prior to
installation of this material, Certificates of Compliance for the pipe and fittings to be furnished.
Certificates of Compliance shall consist of a properties sheet, including specified properties
measured using test methods indicated herein.
B.
C. The Contractor shall submit to the Construction Manager, Record Drawings of the installed piping
at a frequency of not less than once per every 100 feet of installed pipe and strip composite. Record
Drawings shall be submitted within 7 days of completion of the record survey.
1.05 CQA MONITORING
A. The Contractor shall ensure that the materials and methods used for PVC pipe and fittings
installation meet the requirements of the Drawings and this S clion. Any material or method that
does not conform to these documents, or to alternatives ap oved in writing by the Construction
Manager, will be rejected and shall be repaired or replac 6y the Contractor at no additional cost
to the Owner.
PART 2 -MATERIALS
2.01 PVC PIPE & FITTINGS
A. VC compound which meets the requirements
I' ed in ASTM D 1784.
B. PVC pipe shall meet the requiremen
C.
D.
pipe.
E. e h , ogenous throughout and free of visible cracks, holes, foreign
: us defects, being uniform in color, capacity, density, and other physical
F. PVC pipe and t, · g.,primer shall meet the requirements of ASTM F 656 and solvent cements shall
meet the requirem nts of ASTM D 2564.
2.02 PVC PERFORATED PIPE
A. Perforated pipe shall meet the requirements listed above for solid wall pipe, unless otherwise
approved by the Design Engineer. PVC pipe perforations shall be as shown on the Drawings.
2.03 STRIP COMPOSITE
A. Strip composite shall be comprised ofhigh density polyethylene core Multi-Flow Drainage Systems
12-inch product, or Design Engineer approved equal. Consideration for equality will involve
chemical resistance, compressive strength, and flow capacity. Strip composite shall be installed as
shown on the Drawings.
B. Sand bags used to continuously cover the strip composite shall be comprised of woven geotextile
capable of allowing liquids to pass and shall have a minimum length of 18-inches.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Polvvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02616-2 Rev-OJ May 2019
C. Sand bags shall contain Ytah DepartR1ent ofTrafl5f)8rtation (UDOT) eoRGfete (Rev-01) sand having
a carbonate loss of no greater than 10 percent by dry weight basis when tested in accordance with
ASTM D 3042, a permeability of Ix I 0°" cm/s when tested in accordance with ASTM D 2434, (Rev-
01) and meeting the following gradation.
Sieve Size Percent Passing
3/8 inch 100%
No.4 95%to 100%
No. 16 45%to 80%
No. 50 I0%to 30%
No. 100 2%to 10%
D. Contractor shall monitor that sand bags shall not be ov to the extent that the underlying strip
composite is visible.
E. In lieu of sand bag replacement if underlyin
be placed parallel and adjacent to strip com .
F.
of the strip composite are covered.
In lieu of sandbags, Contractor Ill,\:·
UDOT concrete (Rev-01) sand, ove
over the top of the sand and sewn
Drawings.
ven geotextile strips, partially covered with
trip o· :nposite. Woven geotextile shall be folded
eotexti le wrap of the sand as shown on the
PART 3 -PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01
3.02
A. in , an installing pipe, fittings, and accessories, do so to ensure a sound,
ro ; e adequate storage for all materials and equipment delivered to the
e 1ttings shall be handled carefully in loading and unloading so as not to
or underlying materials.
A. PVC pipe installation shall conform to these Specifications, the Manufacturer's recommendations,
and as outlined in ASTM D 2774.
B. PVC perforated and solid wall pipe shall be installed as shown on the Drawings.
C. PVC pipe shall be inspected for cuts, scratches, or other damages prior to installation. Any pipe
showing damage, which in the opinion of the CQA Consultant will affect performance of the pipe,
must be removed from the site. Contractor shall replace any material found to be defective at no
additional cost to the Owner.
3.03 JOINING OF PVC PIPES
A. PVC pipe and fittings shall be joined by primer and solvent-cements per ASTM D 2855.
B. All loose dirt and moisture shall be wiped from the interior and exterior of the pipe end and the
interior of fittings.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Polyvi.nyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5 D 20 I 90515,REV-01 Page 02616-3 Rev-01 May 2019
C. All pipe cuts shall be square and perpendicular to the centerline of the pipe. All burrs, chips, etc.,
from pipe cutting shall be removed from pipe interior and exterior.
D. Pipe and fittings shall be selected so that there will be as small a deviation as possible at the joints,
and so inverts present a smooth surface. Pipe and fittings that do not fit together to form a tight fit
will be rejected.
3.04 PROTECTION OF WORK
A. The Contractor shall use all means necessary to protect all work of this Section.
B. In the event of damage, the Contractor shall make all repairs and replacements necessary, to the
satisfaction of the Construction Manager.
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. Providing for and complying with the requirements set ·
will be measured as in-place linear foot (LF) to the limits
be based on the unit price provided on the Bid Sched ile.
B. Providing for and complying with the require
will be measured as in-place LF to the limit s
the unit price provided on the Bid Schedule.
ti in this Section for 4-inch PVC Pipe
on the Drawings, and payment will
C. Providing for and complying wi
including connectors and sand bag
Drawings, and payment will be base
set forth in this Section for Strip Drain,
n easure s in-place LF to the limits shown on the
0Ge provided on the Bid Schedule.
D.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• Rejected ma erial.
• Rejected material removal, handling, re-testing, and repair.
• Gravel and sand bags and/or woven geotextile.
• UDOTsand.
[END OF SECTION]
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFJCA TIONSS,D.2019051 5.REV-01 Page 02616-4
Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC) Pipe
Rev-Ol May 2019
SECTION 02770
GEO MEMBRANE
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation, equipment, and
incidentals necessary for the installation of smooth and textured high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembrane and HDPE Drain Liner™ geomembrane, as shown on the Drawings. The work shall
be performed as specified herein and in accordance with the Drawings and the site Construction
Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan.
B. The work shall include, but not be limited to, delivery, offloading, storage, placement, anchorage,
and seaming of the geomembrane.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02225 -Drainage Aggregate
Section 02771 -Geotextile
Section 02773 -Geonet
1.03 REFERENCES
A.
B.
C.
D.
Drawings
Site CQA Plan
Geomembranes
et hod for Tensile Properties of Plastics
tand r Test Methods for Specific Gravity (Relative Density) and Density of
Pia by Displacement
ndard Test Methods for Density of Plastics by Density-Gradient Technique
ASTM D 1603 Standard Test Method for Carbon Black in Olefin Plastics
ASTM D 4439 Terminology for Geosynthetics
ASTM D 4833 Standard Test Method for Index Puncture Resistance of Geotextiles,
Geomembranes, and Related Products
ASTM D 5199 Standard Test Method for Measuring the Nominal Thickness of Geosynthetics
ASTM D 5397 Test Method for Evaluation of Stress Crack Resistance of Polyolefin
Geomembranes Using Notched Constant Tensile Load Test
ASTM D 5596 Recommended Practice for Microscopical Examination of Pigment Dispersion in
Plastic Compounds
ASTM D 5641 Practice for Geomembrane Seam Evaluation by Vacuum Chamber
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5.D.20190515.REV-OI Page 02770-1 Rev-01 May 2019
ASTM D 5820 Practice for Pressurized Air Channel Evaluation of Dual Seamed Geomembranes
ASTM D 6365 Standard Test Method for the Non-destructive Testing of Geomembrane Seams
using the Spark Test.
ASTM D 6392 Standard Test Method for Determining the Integrity of Non-reinforced
Geomembrane Seams Produced using Thermo-Fusion Methods.
1.04 QUALIFICATIONS
A. Geomembrane Manufacturer:
I • The Geomembrane Manufacturer shall be responsible for the production of geomembrane
rolls from resin and shall have sufficient production capacity and qualified personnel to
provide material meeting the requirements of this Section and the construction schedule
for this project.
2. The Geomembrane Manufacturer shall have sue fully manufactured a minimum of
20,000,000 square feet of polyethylene geomen ta 1e.
B. Geosynthetics Installer:
I. The Geosynthetics Installer shall be
field handling, deploying, seami 1
aspects of the deployment and ins ·
components of the project.
2. uccessfully installed a m1mmum of
3.
1.05 WARRANTY
a.
· , nembrane on previous projects with similar
gurations.
. one seamer shall have experience seaming a minimum of 2,000,000
squa · feet of polyethylene geomembrane using the same type of seaming
, tus to be used at this Site. Seamers with such experience will be designated
and shall provide direct supervision over less experienced
seamers.
c. All other seaming personnel shall have seamed at least I 00,000 square feet of
polyethylene geomembrane using the same type of seaming apparatus to be used
at this site. Personnel who have seamed less than I 00,000 square feet shall be
allowed to seam only under the direct supervision of the master seamer or
Superintendent.
A. The Geosynthetic Manufacturer shall furnish the Owner a 20-year written warranty against defects
in materials. Warranty conditions concerning limits of liability will be evaluated by, and must be
acceptable to, the Owner.
B. The Geosynthetic Installer shall furnish the Owner with a I -year written warranty against defects
in workmanship. Warranty conditions concerning limits of liability will be evaluated by, and must
be acceptable to, the Owner.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geomemb.rane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATJONSS.D 20190515.REV-Ol Page 02770-2 Rev-0 l May 2019
1.06 SUBMITT ALS
A. The Geosynthetic Installer shall submit the following documentation on the resin used to
manufacture the geomembrane to the Construction Manager for approval 14 days prior to
transporting any geomembrane to the Site.
B.
C.
1. Copies of quality control certificates issued by the resin supplier including the production
dates, brand name, and origin of the resin used to manufacture the geomembrane for the
project.
2. Results of tests conducted by the Geomembrane Manufacturer to verify the quality of the
resin used to manufacture the geomembrane rolls assigned to the project.
3. Certification that no reclaimed polymer is added to the resin during the manufacturing of
the geomembrane to be used for this project, or, if recycled polymer is used, the
Manufacturer shall submit a certificate signed by the production manager documenting the
quantity of recycled material, including a descriptior f the procedure used to measure the
quantity of recycled polymer.
The Geosynthetic Installer shall submit
production to the Construction Manager for
geomembrane to the site.
1. Quality control certificates, which
a.
b.
2.
roll
any
inc ing descriptions of the test methods used,
tion.
ollowing information to the Construction Manager for
1.
2. Installation schedule.
3. Copy of Geosynthetic Installer's letter of approval or license by the Geomembrane
Manufacturer.
4. Installation capabilities, including:
a. information on equipment proposed for this project;
b. average daily production anticipated for this project; and
c. quality control procedures.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5.D 20190515,REV-Ol Page 02770-3 Rev-OJ May 2019
5. A list of completed facilities for which the Geosynthetic Installer has installed a minimum
of20,000,000 square feet of polyethylene geomembrane, in accordance with Subpart 1.04
of this Section. The following information shall be submitted to the Construction Manager
for each facility:
a. the name and purpose of the facility, its location, and dates of installation;
b. the names of the owner, Engineer, and geomembrane manufacturer;
c. name of the supervisor of the installation crew; and
d. thickness and surface area of installed geomembrane.
6. In accordance with Subpart 1.04 of this Section, a resume of the Superintendent to be
assigned to this project, including dates and duration of employment, shall be submitted at
least 7 days prior to beginning geomembrane installation.
7. In accordance with Subpart 1.04 of this Section, re mes of all personnel who will perform
seaming operations on this project, including d and duration of employment, shall be
submitted at least 7 days prior to beginning ge b ·ane installation.
D. A Certificate of Calibration less than 12 month
prior to installation of any geomembrane.
E. During installation, the Geosynthetic Jnstalle
F.
G.
Construction Manager of:
1.
2. the Geosynthetic Installer, for each area to be
H. The Geosynthe i ns aller shall submit samples and material property cut-sheets on the proposed
geomembrane to t e Construction Manager at least 7 days prior to delivery of this material to the
site.
I. The Geosynthetic Installer shall submit the following documentation on welding rod to the
Construction Manager for approval 14 days prior to transporting welding rod to the Site:
1. Quality control documentation, including lot number, welding rod spool number, and
results of quality control tests on the welding rod.
2. Certification that the welding rod is compatible with the geomembrane and this Section.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS,D 20190515.REV-01 Page 02770-4 Rev-01 May 2019
1.07 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (CQA) MONITORING
A. The Geosynthetic Installer shall be aware of and accommodate all monitoring and conformance
testing required by the CQA Plan. This monitoring and testing, including random conformance
testing of construction materials and completed work, will be performed by the CQA Consultant. If
nonconformances or other deficiencies are found in the Geosynthetic Installer's materials or
completed work, the Geosynthetic Installer will be required to repair the deficiency or replace the
deficient materials.
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
2.01 GEOMEMBRANE PROPERTIES
2.02
A. The Primary Geomembrane Manufacturer shall furnish white-or off-white-surfaced (upper side
only), smooth and textured geomembrane having properties that comply with the required property
values shown in Table 02770-1.
B.
C.
D.
A.
The Secondary Floor Geomembrane Manufacturer shal
geomembrane having properties that comply with the
l:lrnisb black, smooth and textured
ired property values shown in Table
02770-1
I.
2.
Rolls:
l.
2.
3.
4.
ditives, fillers, or extenders (not including
I s). bubbles, blisters, nodules, undispersed raw materials,
·eign matter on the surface or in the interior.
ne Manufacturer shall continuously monitor geomembrane during the
ocess for defects.
Brane shall be accepted that exhibits any defects.
The Geomembrane Manufacturer shall measure and report the geomembrane thickness at
regular intervals along the roll length.
No geomembrane shall be accepted that fails to meet the specified thickness.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATJONS5.D 20190515.REV-Ol Page 02770-5 Rev-0 l May 2019
5. The Geomembrane Manufacturer shall sample and test the geomembrane at a minimum of
once every 50,000 square feet, to demonstrate that its properties conform to the values
specified in Tables 02770-1 and 02770-2. At a minimum, the following tests shall be
performed:
6.
7.
8.
9.
Test Procedure
Thickness ASTM D 5199
or ASTM D 5994
Specific Gravity ASTMD792
Tensile Properties ASTMD 6933
Puncture Resistance ASTM D4833
Carbon Black ASTM D 4218 -
Carbon Black ASTMDX
Dispersion
Te V >>r> sts not listed above but listed in Table O'l.770-1 or abl 0 2770-2 need not be run at the
one per 50,000 square feet frequen ;owever. the Ge0 embrane Manufacturer shall
certify that these tests are in comp a ce wi is Section and have been performed on a
sample that is identical to the geomem o be used on this project. The Geosynthetic
Installer shall provide the test result do ntation to the Construction Manager.
Any geomembrane sample
result in rejection of the roll
this project.
with the requirements of this Section will
ample was obtained and will not be used for
B. The Geomembrane Manufacturer shall permit the CQA Consultant to visit the manufacturing plant
for project specific visits. If possible, such visits will be prior to or during the manufacturing of the
geomembrane rolls for the specific project. The CQA Consultant may elect to collect conformance
samples at the manufacturing facility to expedite the acceptance of the materials.
2.03 INTERFACE SHEAR TESTING
A. Interface shear test(s) shall be performed by the CQA Consultant on the proposed geosynthetic
components in accordance with ASTM D 5321. Tests shall be performed on geosynthetic
interfaces as outlined below.
1. Geotextile and Textured HDPE Geomembrane -the nonwoven cushion geotextile shall
be overlain by a 60-mil textured HDPE geomembrane.
a. Concrete sand shall be placed overlying and underlying the materials being
tested. The test shall be performed at normal stresses of 100, 200, and 400 psf at
a shear rate ofno more than 0.20 in./min (5 mm/min.).
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D.20190515.REV-OI Page 02770-6 Rev-01 May 2019
2.04
2.05
b. The results of this test shall have a peak apparent friction angle in excess of23
degrees.
2. Drain Liner™ and Smooth HDPE Geomembrane -the Drain Liner™ shall be overlain by
a 60-mil smooth geomembrane.
a. Concrete sand shall be placed overlying and underlying the materials being
tested. The test shall be performed at normal stresses of 10, 20, and 40 psi at a
shear rate ofno more than 0.20 in./min. (5 mm/min.).
b. The results of this test shall have a peak apparent friction angle in excess of 11
degrees.
3. Geonet and smooth HDPE Geomembrane -the geonet shall be overlain by a 60-mil
smooth HDPE geomembrane.
a. Concrete sand shall be placed overlying the geomembrane being tested. The test
shall be performed at normal stresses of I O and 40 psi at a shear rate of no
more than 0.20 in./min. (5 mm/min.).
b. The results of this test shall have
degrees.
LABELING
A.
1. thickness of the material;
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
A. The Geosynthetic anufacturer shall be liable for any damage to the geomembrane incurred prior
to and during transportation to the site.
B. Handling and care of the geomembrane at the site prior to and following installation shall be the
responsibility of the Geosynthetic Installer. The Geosynthetic Installer shall be liable for all damage
to the materials incurred prior to final acceptance of the liner system by the Owner.
C. Geosynthetic Installer shall be responsible for storage of the geomembrane at the site. The
geomembrane shall be protected from excessive heat or cold, dirt, puncture, cutting, or other
damaging or deleterious conditions. Any additional storage procedures required by the
Geomembrane Manufacturer shall be the Geosynthetic Installer's responsibility. Geomembrane
rolls shall not be stored or placed in a stack of more than two rolls high.
D. The geomembrane shall be delivered at least 14 days prior to the planned deployment date to allow
the CQA Consultant adequate time to perform conformance testing on the geomembrane samples
as described in Subpart 3.05 of this Section. If the CQA Consultant performed a visit to the
manufacturing plant and performed the required conformance sampling, geomembrane can be
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5,D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02770-7 Rev-01 May 2019
delivered to the site within the 14 days prior to the planned deployment date as long as there is
sufficient time for the CQA Consultant to complete the conformance testing and confirm that the
rolls shipped to the site are in compliance with this Section.
PART 3 -GEOMEMBRANE INSTALLATION
3.01 FAMILIARIZATION
A. Prior to implementing any of the work described in this Section, the Geosynthetic Installer shall
become thoroughly familiar with all portions of the work falling within this Section.
B. Inspection:
C.
I • The Geosynthetic Installer shall carefully inspect the installed work of all other Sections
and verify that all work is complete to the point where the work of this Section may
properly commence without adverse effect.
2. If the Geosynthetic Installer has any concerns r, !garding the installed work of other
Sections, he shall notify the Construction Mana l1 n writing prior to the start of the work
of this Section. Failure to inform the Cons e:fj'. anager in writing or commencing
installation of the geomembrane will a as the Geosynthetic Installer's
acceptance of the related work of all ot te
3.02 GEOMEMBRANE DEPLOYMENT
A. Layout Drawings:
B.
I.
1.
2.
The Geosynthet
with the Pa
by the CQ
deploy the geomembrane panels in general accordance
s • ecified. The Panel Layout Drawing must be approved
install ation of any geomembrane.
nel is a roll or a portion of roll cut in the field.
shall be given a unique identification code (number or letter-number).
1 enti · on code shall be agreed upon by the Construction Manager and
· Installer.
C. Field Panel Placement:
1. Field panels shall be installed, as approved or modified, at the location and positions
indicated on the Panel Layout Drawing.
2. Primary geomembrane field panels shall be installed with the white side of the
geomembrane upward with the exception of the splash pads which will have the black side
of the geomembrane upward.
3. Drain Liner™ shall be placed with the studded side upward.
4. Panels shall be laid out in a manner which minimizes seams.
5. Field panels shall be placed one at a time.
Cell SA und SB Li ning System onst ruction Geomembrane
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPEC!FICATIONS5.D.20190515.REV-Ol Page 02770-8 Rev-01 May 2019
6. Geomembrane shall not be placed when the ambient temperature is below 32°F or above
122°F, as measured in Subpart 3.03.C.3 in this Section, unless otherwise authorized in
writing by the Design Engineer. Geomembrane panels shall be allowed to equilibrate to
temperature of adjacent panels prior to seaming.
7. Geomembrane shall not be placed during any precipitation, in the presence of excessive
moisture (e.g., fog, dew), in an area of ponded water, or in the presence of wind speeds
greater than 20 mph.
8. The Geosynthetic Installer shall ensure that:
a. No vehicular traffic is allowed on the geomembrane with the exception of all
terrain vehicles with a contact pressures at or lower than that exhibited by foot
traffic.
b. Equipment used does not damage the geomembrane by handling, trafficking, or
leakage of hydrocarbons (i.e., fuels).
c. Personnel working on the geomembr e ao not smoke, wear damaging shoes,
d.
e.
f.
g.
bring glass onto the geomembrane, fl e in other activities that could damage
the geomembrane.
r anchors (e.g., sand bags) are placed on the
1t wind uplift. Ballast methods must not damage the
1 especially protected from damage in heavily trafficked
facilitate seaming are removed prior to installation of
9. I p I or portion thereof that becomes seriously damaged (tom, twisted, or
crimpe II be replaced with new material. Less serious damage to the geomembrane
may be repaired, as approved by the Construction Manager. Damaged panels or portions
of damaged panels that have been rejected shall be removed from the work area and not
reused.
10. Care shall be taken during placement of tertiary, Drain Liner™ geomembrane to prevent
dirt or excessive dust in the liner studs that could cause clogging and/or damage to the
adjacent materials.
D. If the Geosynthetic Installer intends to install geomembrane between one hour before sunset and
one hour after sunrise, he shall notify the Construction Manager in writing prior to the start of the
work. The Geosynthetic Installer shall indicate additional precautions that shall be taken during
these installation hours. The Geosynthetic Installer shall provide proper illumination for work
during this time period.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5,D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02770-9 Rev-01 May 2019
3.03 FIELD SEAMING
A. Seam Layout:
I . In comers and at odd-shaped geometric locations, the number of field seams shall be
minimized. On slopes steeper than 1 O: 1 (horizontal:vertical), geomembrane panels shall
be continuous down the slope, i.e., no horizontal seams shall be allowed on the slope.
Horizontal seams shall be considered as any seam having an alignment exceeding
45 degrees from being perpendicular to the slope contour lines, unless otherwise approved
by the Design Engineer. No seams shall be located in an area of potential stress
concentration.
2. Seams shall not be allowed within 5 feet of the top or toe of any slope.
B. Personnel:
1. All personnel performing seaming operations shall be ualified as indicated in Subpart I .04
of this Section. es a "master seamer" is present on-
site.
C. Weather Conditions for Seaming:
D.
1.
2.
3.
I.
t etic Installer and Design Engineer to establish
a I cases, the geomembrane shall be dry and
ring installation.
3. Geomembrane panels shall be sufficiently overlapped for welding and to allow peel tests
to be performed on the seam. Any seams that cannot be destructively tested because of
insufficient overlap shall be treated as failing seams.
E. Seam Preparation:
I . Prior to seaming, the seam area shall be clean and free of moisture, dust, dirt, debris of any
kind, and foreign material.
2. If seam overlap grinding is required, including to remove Drain Liner™ studs, the process
shall be completed according to the Geomembrane Manufacturer's instructions within 20
minutes of the seaming operation and in a manner that does not damage the geomembrane.
The grind depth shall not exceed ten percent of the core geomembrane thickness.
3. Seams shall be aligned with the fewest possible number of wrinkles and "fishmouths."
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFJCA TIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02770-10 Rev-OJ May 2019
F. General Seaming Requirements:
I. Fishmouths or wrinkles at the seam overlaps shall be cut along the ridge of the wrinkle to
achieve a flat overlap, ending the cut with circular cut-out. The cut fishmouths or wrinkles
shall be seamed and any portion where the overlap is insufficient shall be patched with an
oval or round patch of geomembrane that extends a minimum of 6 inches beyond the cut
in all directions.
2. Any electric generator shall be placed outside the area to be lined or mounted in a manner
that protects the geomembrane from damage due to the weight and frame of the generator
or due to fuel leakage. The electric generator shall be properly grounded.
G. Seaming Process:
'I. Approved processes for field seaming are extrusion welding and double-track hot-wedge
fusion welding. Only equipment identified as part of the approved submittal specified in
Subpart 1.06 of this Section shall be used.
2. Extrusion Equipment and Procedures:
a. The Geosynthetics Installer shal
apparatus on site.
b.
C.
d.
3.
ea t one spare operable seaming
giving the
the extruder shall be purged until all heat-
·orn the barrel.
shall be automated vehicular-mounted devices
C. 1100th insulating plate or fabric shall be placed beneath the hot welding
pparatus after use.
H. Drain Liner™ butt-seams
I. At the Drain Liner™ butt-seams (end of panel), a 2-foot length of200-mil geonet will be
installed over the seams to extend a minimum of 6-inches onto the adjacent panel studs
and shall extend across the width of the panel. Butt-seam requirement applies to Drain
Liner™ to Drain Liner™, not to Drain Liner™ to smooth or textured HDPE
geomembrane.
2. Distance between studs on the panel and extrusion-welded piece shall not exceed 3-
inches.
I. Trial Seams:
I . Trial seams shall be made on fragment pieces of geomembrane to verify that seaming
conditions are adequate. Trial seams shall be conducted on the same material to be installed
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02770-11 Rev-0 I May 2019
and under similar field conditions as production seams. Such trial seams shall be made at
the beginning of each seaming period, typically at the beginning of the day and after lunch,
for each seaming apparatus used each day, but no less frequently than once every 5 hours.
The trial seam sample shall be a minimum of 5 feet long by 1 foot wide (after seaming)
with the seam centered lengthwise for fusion equipment and at least 3 feet long by 1 foot
wide for extrusion equipment. Seam overlap shall be as indicated in Subpart 3.03.D of this
Section.
2. Four coupon specimens, each 1-inch wide, shall be cut from the trial seam sample by the
Geosynthetics Installer using a die cutter to ensure precise 1-inch wide coupons. The
coupons shall be tested, by the Geosynthetic Installer, with the CQA Site Manager present,
in peel (both the outside and inside track) and in shear using an electronic readout field
tensiometer in accordance with ASTM D 6392, at a strain rate of 2 inches/minute. The
samples shall not exhibit failure in the seam, i.e., they shall exhibit a Film Tear Bond
(FTB), which is a failure (yield) in the parent material. The required peel and shear seam
strength values are listed in Table 02770-3. At no time shall specimens be soaked in water.
3. If any coupon specimen fails, the trial seam sl a e considered failing and the entire
operation shall be repeated. If any of the addit a coupon specimens fail, the seaming
apparatus and seamer shall not be accepte nd s l not be used for seaming until the
deficiencies are corrected and two consecutive success
J. Nondestructive Seam Continuity Testing:
1.
a.
b.
nse edle or other approved pressure feed device, from pressure
auge and inflation device into the air channel at one end of a double
ack seam.
Energize the air pump and inflate air channel to a pressure between 25
and 30 pounds per square inch (psi). Close valve and sustain the pressure
for not less than 5 minutes.
iii. If loss of pressure exceeds 3 psi over 5 minutes, or if the pressure does
not stabilize, locate the faulty area(s) and repair seam in accordance with
Subpart 3.03.K of this Section.
iv. After 5 minutes, cut the end of air channel opposite from the end with the
pressure gauge and observe release of pressure to ensure air channel is
not blocked. If the channel does not depressurize, find and repair the
portion of the seam containing the blockage per Subpart 3.03.K of this
Section. Repeat the air pressure test on the resulting segments of the
original seam created by the repair and the ends of the seam. Repeat the
process until the entire length of seam has successfully passed pressure
testing or contains a repair. Repairs shall also be non-destructively tested
per Subpart 3.03.K.5 of this Section.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICAT10NS5J) 20190515 REV-01 Page 02770-12 Rev-01 May 2019
v. Remove needle, or other approved pressure feed device, and seal repair in
accordance with Subpart 3.03.K of this Section.
c. Spark test seam integrity verification shall be performed in accordance with
ASTM D 6365 if the seam cannot be tested using other nondestructive methods.
K. Destructive Testing:
I. Destructive seam tests shall be performed on samples collected from selected locations to
evaluate seam strength and integrity. Destructive tests shall be carried out as the seaming
work progresses, not at the completion of all field seaming.
2. Sampling:
a. Destructive test samples shall be collected at a minimum average frequency of
one test location per 500 feet of total seam length. If after a total of 50 samples
have been tested and no more than I sam le has failed, the frequency can be
increased to one per 1,000 feet. Test locat'e shall be determined during seaming,
and may be prompted by suspicion of x,ess crystallinity, contamination, offset
seams, or any other potential cause o 'rn · ct seaming. The CQA Site Manager
will be responsible for choosin, 1 locati :s. The Geosynthetic Installer shall
not be informed in advance of ti locations wh e he seam samples will be taken.
The CQA Site Manager re es the ight to inc ·e,Jlse the sampling frequency if
b.
observations suggest an i reased , ency is warranted.
Two ~ 1pon strips of dimensions I-inch wide and I2-inches long with the seam
parallel to the width shall be taken from any side of the sample location.
amples shall be tested in the field in accordance with Subpart 3.03.J.3 of
lu ecti.on. If these samples pass the field test, a laboratory sample shall be
a.ken. The laboratory sample shall be at least I-foot wide by 3.5-feet long with
the seam centered along the length. The sample shall be cut into three parts and
distributed as follows:
i. One portion 12-inches long to the Geosynthetic Installer.
ii. One portion 18-inches long to the Geosynthetic CQA Laboratory for
testing.
m. One portion I2-inches long to the Owner for archival storage.
3. Field Testing:
a. The two I-inch wide strips shall be tested in the field tensiometer in the peel mode
on both sides of the double track fusion welded sample. The CQA Site Manager
has the option to request an additional test in the shear mode. If any field test
sample fails to meet the requirements in Table 02770-3, then the procedures
Cell SA and 5B Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5.D,20190515 REV-0 I Page 02770-13 Rev-0 I May 2019
outlined in Subpart 3.03.J.5 of this Section for a failing destructive sample shall
be followed.
4. Laboratory Testing:
a. Testing by the Geosynthetics CQA Laboratory will include "Seam Strength" and
"Peel Adhesion" (ASTM D 6392) with 1-inch wide strips tested at a rate of
2 inches/minute. At least 5 specimens will be tested for each test method (peel
and shear). Four of the five specimens per sample must pass both the shear
strength test and peel adhesion test when tested in accordance with
ASTM D 6392. The minimum acceptable values to be obtained in these tests are
indicated in Table 02770-3. Both the inside and outside tracks of the dual track
fusion welds shall be tested in peel.
5. Destructive Test Failure:
a. The following procedures shall apply when _ver a sample fails a destructive test,
whether the test is conducted by th <13 osynthetic CQA's laboratory, the
Geosynthetic Installer laboratory, or b field tensiometer. The Geosynthetic
Installer shall have two options:
i.
ii.
tory-passed destructive test
Trial welds do not count as a
trace the welding path in each direction to
· em<ion a mi.n'imum of 10 feet from the location of the
a mall sample for an additional field test at each
ditional samples pass the field tests, then full laboratory
aken. These full laboratory samples shall be tested in
accor , ance wit Subpa1t 3.03.J.4 of this Section. If these laboratory
am e i;,as tli · ests, then the seam path between these locations shall be
nstructed and nondestructively (at a minimum) tested. If a sample
then the process shall be repeated, i.e. another destructive sample
obtained and tested at a distance of at least 10 more feet in the
aming path from the failed sample, The seam path between the ultimate
assing sample locations shall be reconstructed and nondestructively (at a
inimurn) tested. In cases where repaired seam lengths exceed 150 feet, a
destructive sample shall be taken from the repaired seam and the above
procedures for destructive seam testing shall be followed.
b. Whenever a sample fails destructive or non-destructive testing, the CQA
Consultant may require additional destructive tests be obtained from seams that
were created by the same seamer and/or seaming apparatus during the same time
shift.
L. Defects and Repairs:
I • The geomembrane will be inspected before and after seaming for evidence of defects,
holes, blisters, undispersed raw materials, and any sign of contamination by foreign matter.
The surface of the geomembrane shall be clean at the time of inspection. The
geomembrane surface shall be swept or washed by the Installer if surface contamination
inhibits inspection.
2. At observed suspected flawed location, both in seamed and non-seamed areas, shall be
nondestructively tested using the methods described Subpart 3.03.1 of this Section, as
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5 D.20190515.REV-Ol Page 02770-14 Rev-01 May 2019
appropriate. Each location that fails nondestructive testing shall be marked by the CQA
Site Manager and repaired by the Geosynthetic Installer.
3. When seaming of a geomembrane is completed ( or when seaming of a large area of a
geomembrane is completed) and prior to placing overlying materials, the CQA Site
Manager shall identify all excessive geomembrane wrinkles. The Geosynthetic Installer
shall cut and reseam all wrinkles so identified. The seams thus produced shall be tested
as per all other seams.
4. Repair Procedures:
a. Any portion of the geomembrane exhibiting a flaw, or failing a destructive or
nondestructive test, shalJ be repaired by the Geosynthetic Installer. Several repair
procedures are acceptable. The final decision as to the appropriate repair
procedure shall be agreed upon between the Design Engineer · and the
Geosynthetic Installer. The procedures available include:
b.
i. Patching -extrusion welding a p
tears, undispersed raw material ,
· o repair holes larger than 1/16 inch,
d contamination by foreign matter;
ii. Abrading and reseaming
sections of faulty extrud
111.
iv.
v.
a geomembrane cap over long lengths of
tting out bad seams and replacing with a strip of new
to place on both sides with fusion welding.
criteria shall be satisfied:
:aces of the geomembrane that are to be repaired shall be abraded no
mo tban 20 minutes prior to the repair;
t e grind depth around the repair shall not exceed ten percent of the core
eomembrane thickness;
all surfaces must be clean and dry at the time of repair;
iv. all seaming equipment used in repair procedures must be approved by trial
seaming;
v. any other potential repair procedures shall be approved in advance, for the
specific repair, by the Design Engineer;
v1. patches or caps shall extend at least 6 inches beyond the edge of the defect,
and all comers of patches and holes shall be rounded with a radius of at
least 3 inches;
vii. extrudate shall extend a minimum of3 inches beyond the edge of the patch;
and
viii. any geomembrane below large caps shall be appropriately cut to avoid
water or gas collection between the two sheets.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634,TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02770-15 Rev-01 May 2019
5. Repair Verification:
a. Repairs shall be nondestructively tested using the methods described in Subpart
3.03.1 of this Section, as appropriate. Repairs that pass nondestructive testing
shall be considered acceptable repairs. Repairs that failed nondestructive or
destructive testing will require the repair to be reconstructed and retested until
passing test results are observed. At the discretion of the CQA Consultant,
destructive testing may be required on any caps.
3.04 MATERIALS IN CONTACT WITH THE GEOMEMBRANE
A. The Geosynthetic Installer shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that the geomembrane is
not damaged during its installation. During the installation of other components of the liner system
by the Contractor, the Contractor shall ensure that the geomembrane is not damaged. Any damage
to the geomembrane caused by the Contractor shall be repaired by the Geosynthetic InstaJJer at the
expense of the Contractor.
B. Soil and aggregate materials shall not be placed over the
below 32°F or above 122°F, unless otherwise specified.
C.
D.
3.05 CONFORMANCE TESTING
A.
·affic and all terrain vehicles
B. by e CQA Consultant in accordance with this Section and with the
CQA Plan.
C. a minimum frequency of one sample per 100,000 square feet excluding the
splash pads. Geomembrane Manufacturer provides material that requires sampling at a
frequency (due to Jot size, shipment size, etc.) resulting in one sample per less than 90 percent of
100,000 square feet (90,000 square feet), then the Geosynthetic Installer shall pay the cost for all
additional testing.
D. The CQA Consultant may increase the frequency of sampling in the event that test results do not
comply with the requirements of Subpart 2.02 of this Section.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS D.20 I 90515.REV-DI Page 02770-16 Rev-DJ May 2019
E. The following tests will be performed by the CQA Consultant:
Test Procedure
Thickness ASTM D 5199
or ASTM D 5944
Specific Gravity ASTMD792
Tensile Properties ASTMD6693
Carbon Black ASTM D 4218
Carbon Black Dispersion ASTMD 5596
F. Any geomembrane that is not certified in accordance with Subpart 1.06.C of this Section, or that
conformance testing indicates does not comply with Subpart 2 02 of this Section, shall be rejected.
The Geosynthetic Installer shall replace the rejected materi I 1th new material.
3.06 GEOMEMBRANE ACCEPTANCE
3.07
A. The Geosynthetic Installer shall retain all owners
accepted by the Owner.
B. The geomembrane will not be accepted by t
L
2.
3.
4.
B. e, the Geosynthetic Installer shall make all repairs and replacements necessary,
the Construction Manager.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS D 20190515.REV-Ol Page 02770-17 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. Providing for and complying with the requirements set forth in this Section for 60-mil, smooth,
textured, and Drain Liner™ HDPE geomembrane will be measured as in-place square feet (SF), as
measured by the surveyor, including geomembrane in the anchor trench to the limits shown on the
Drawings, and payment will be based on the unit price provided on the Bid Schedule.
B. The following are considered incidental to the Work:
• Submittals.
• Quality Control.
• Shipping, handling and storage.
• Deployment.
• Layout survey.
• Mobilization.
• Rejected material.
• Rejected material removal, handling, re-testino
• Overlaps and seaming.
• Temporary anchorage.
• Pipe boots.
• Cleaning seam area.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634, TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS D.20190515,REV-Ol Page 02770-18 Rev-01 May 2019
PROPERTIES
Physical Properties
Thickness
Specific Gravity
Mechanical Properties
Tensile Properties (each direction)
I. Tensile (Break) Strength
2. Elongation at Break
3. Tensile (Yield) Strength
4. Elongation at Yield
Puncture
Environmental Properties
Carbon Black Content
Carbon Black Dispersion
Environmental Stress Crack
Liner System Properties
Interface Shear Strength -Textured
Geomembrane and Geotextile
Interface Shear Strength -Smooth
Geomembrane to Geonet
Interface Shear Strength -Smooth
Geomembrane to Drain Liner™ HOPE
geomembrane ~
Notes: (!) Minimum 9 of JO in
TABLE 02770-1
REQUIRED HDPE GEO MEMBRANE PROPERTIES
QUALIFIERS
Average
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Minimum
Range
NIA
Minimum
UNITS
mils
mils
NIA
lb/in
%
lb/in
%
lb
%
SMOOTHHDPE
SPECIFIED
VALUES
60
54
0.94
228
700
126
12
NIA
NIA
in Categories I, 2, or 3.
TEXTURED HOPE
SPECIFIED
VALUES
60
54
0.94
90
100
126
12
90
2
Note 1
300
23
11
II
TEST METHOD
ASTM D 5199
or ASTM D 5944
ASTM D 792 Method A
or ASTM D 1505
ASTM D6693
ASTM D4833
ASTMD4218
ASTMD 5596
ASTMD 5397
ASTM D53212
ASTM D 5321 2
ASTM D 5321 2
(2) performed, by the CQA Consultant, in accordance with part 2.03. I of this Section.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Geomembrane
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECJFICATJONSS.D 20190515.REV-OI Page 02770-19 Rev-01 May 2019
TABLE 02770-2
REQUIRED HOPE DRAIN LINER™ GEOMEMBRANE PROPERTIES
PROPERTIES
Phvsicnl Proper1 ies
Thickness
Specific Gravity
Drainage Stud Height
Mechanical Propcrtie.~
Tensile Properties ( each direction)
I. Tensile (Break) Strength
2. Elongation at Break
3. Tensile (Yield) Strength
4. Elongation at Yield
Puncture
Environmemal Properties
Carbon Black Content
Carbon Black Dispersion
Environmental Stress Crack
Liner vstem Progenies
Interface Shear Strength
Notes: (I)
(2)
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
QUALIFIERS UNITS
Average mils
Minimum mils
Minimum NIA
Average Minimum mils
Minimum
lb/in
%
lb/in
%
Minimum
Range
NIA
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5,D 20190515,REV-O I Page 02770-20
SPECIFIED
VALUES
60
54
0.94
130
2
Note I
300
II
TEST METHOD
ASTM D 5994
ASTMD792
ASTM D 7466
ASTMD 6693
ASTMD4833
ASTMD4218
ASTM D 5596
ASTMD 5397
ASTM D5321 2
Geomembrane
Rev-OJ May 2019
TABLE 02770-3
REQUIRED GEOMEMBRANE SEAM PROPERTIES
PROPERTIES QUALIFIERS UNITS
Shear Strengthil>
Fusion minimum lb/in
Extrusion minimum lb/in
Peel Adhesion
FTB<2>
Fusion minimum lb/in
Extrusion minimum lb/in
Notes: (1) Also called "Bonded Seam Strength".
(2) FIB = Film Tear Bond means that failure is in the parent material, not the
the seam area.
(3) Four of five specimens per destructive sample must pass both the shear an
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFJCATIONS5,D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02770-21
SPECIFIED TEST METHOD VALUEs<3>
120 ASTM D 6392
120 ASTM D6392
Visual Observation
91 ASTM D6392
78 ASTMD6392
maximum seam separation is 25 percent of
Geomembrane
Rev-01 May 2019
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 02771
GEOTEXTILE
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation, equipment, and
incidentals necessary for the installation of the geotextile. The work shall be carried out as specified
herein and in accordance with the Drawings and the Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan.
B. The work shall include, but not be limited to, delivery, offloading, storage, placement, and seaming
of the various geotextile components of the project.
C. Nonwoven cushion geotextile shall be used between the Drainage Aggregate and Geomembrane as
shown on the Drawings. Woven geotextile shall be used over ing the cushion geotextile/drainage
aggregate as shown on the Drawings.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02200 -Earthwork
Section 02225 -Drainage Aggregate
Section 02770 -Geomembrane
Section 02773 -Geonet
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Drawings
B. Site CQA Plan
C.
Deterioration of Geotextile from Exposure to
ASTM D 4491 Standard Test Method for Water Permeability ofGeotextile by Permittivity
ASTM D 4533 Standard Test Method for Trapezoid Tearing Strength ofGeotextile
ASTM D 4632 Standard Test Method for Breaking Load and Elongation of Geotextile (Grab
Method)
ASTM D 4 751 Standard Test Method for Determining Apparent Opening Size of a Geotextile
ASTM D 6241 Standard Test Method for the Static Puncture Strength of Geotextiles and
Geotextile-Related Products Using a 50-mm Probe
ASTM D 5261 Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass Per Unit Area of Geotextile
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geotextile
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATJONS5,D 20190515 REV-OJ Page 02771-1 Rev-0 I May 2019
1.04 SUBMITT ALS
A. The Contractor shall submit the following information regarding the proposed geotextile to the
Construction Manager for approval at least 7 days prior to geotextile delivery:
1. manufacturer and product name;
2. minimum property values of the proposed geotextile and the corresponding test procedures;
3. projected geotextile delivery dates; and
4. list of geotextile roll numbers for rolls to be delivered to the site.
B. At least 7 days prior to geotextile placement, the Contractor shall submit to the Construction
Manager the Manufacturing Quality Control (MQC) certificates for each roll of geotextile. The
certificates shall be signed by responsible parties employed by the geotextile manufacturer (such as
the production manager). The MQC certificates shall include:
1. lot, batch, and/or roll numbers and identificatior ;
2. MQC test results, including a description of'
3. Certification that the geotextile meet
and this Section.
1.05 CQA MONITORING
A. The Contractor shall be aware of an
by the CQA Plan. This monitor
construction materials and omplet
nonconformances or ot d
the Contractor will
additional expense
nitoring and conformance testing required
~"Q!l'"'I!• ... 1 eluding random conformance testing of
w1 I be performed by the CQA Consultant. If
found in the Contractor's materials or completed work,
he deficiency or replace the deficient materials at no
PART 2-PRODUCTS
2.01
A. · e Manuf; · rer shall furnish materials that meet or exceed the criteria specified in
u ace dance with the minimum average roll value (MARV), as defined by ASTM
B. The cushion geotextile shall be nonwoven materials, suitable for use in filter/separation and cushion
applications.
2.02 MANUFACTURING QUALITY CONTROL (MQC)
A. The geotextile shall be manufactured with MQC procedures that meet or exceed generally accepted
industry standards.
B. The Geotextile Manufacturer shall sample and test the geotextile to demonstrate that the material
conforms to the requirements of these Specifications.
C. Any geotextile sample that does not comply with this Section shall result in rejection of the roll from
which the sample was obtained. The Contractor shall replace any rejected rolls.
D. If a geotextile sample fails to meet the MQC requirements of this Section the Geotextile
Manufacturer shall additionally sample and test, at the expense of the Manufacturer, rolls
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geotextile
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFJCATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02771-2 Rev-OJ May 2019
2.03
2.04
manufactured in the same lot, or at the same time, as the failing roll. Sampling and testing of rolls
shall continue until a pattern of acceptable test results is established to define the bounds of the
failed roll(s). All the rolls pertaining to the failed rolls shall be rejected.
E. Additional sample testing may be performed, at the Geotextile Manufacturer's discretion and
expense, to identify more closely the extent ofnon-complying rolls and/or to qualify individual rolls.
F. Sampling shall, in general, be performed on sacrificial portions of the geotextile material such that
repair is not required. The Geotextile Manufacturer shall sample and test the geotextile to
demonstrate that the geotextile properties conform to the values specified in Table 02771-1.
G.
A.
A.
B.
I. At a minimum, the following MQC tests shall be performed on the geotextile (results of
which shall meet the requirements specified in Table 02271 ):
Test Procedure Frequency
Grab strength ASTMD4632
Mass per Unit Area
Tear strength
Puncture strength
Permittivity
A.O.S. 540,000 ft2
The Geotextile Manufacturer shall c ification and submittal requirements of this
Section.
, the proposed geosynthetic components in accordance
marked or tagged with the following information:
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
manufacturer's name;
product identification;
lot or batch number;
roll number; and
roll dimensions.
2.05 TRANSPORTATION, HANDLING, AND STORAGE
A. The Geosynthetic Manufacturer shall be liable for any damage to the geotextile incurred prior to
and during transportation to the site.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geotextile
YSC0634.TECHNICALSPECIF1CATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02771-3 Rev-0 I May 2019
B. The geotextile shall be delivered to the site at least 14 days prior to the planned deployment date to
allow the CQA Consultant adequate time to perform conformance testing on the geotextile samples
as described in Subpart 3 .06 of this Section.
C. Handling, unloading, storage, and care of the geotextile at the site, prior to and following
installation, are the responsibility of the Contractor. The Contractor shall be liable for any damage
to the materials incurred prior to fmal acceptance by the Owner.
D. The Contractor shall be responsible for offloading and storage of the geotextile at the site.
E. The geotextile shall be protected from sunlight, puncture, or other damaging or deleterious
conditions. The geotextile shall be protected from mud, dirt, and dust. Any additional storage
procedures required by the geotextile Manufacturer shall be the responsibility of the Contractor.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 FAMILIARIZATION
A. Prior to implementing any of the work described in t us ection the Contractor shall become
thoroughly familiar with the site, the site conditions, a tions of the work falling within this
Section.
B. If the Contractor has any concerns regardin other Sections or the site, the
Construction Manager shall be notified, in rit ng pr"or. o commencmg the work. Failure to notify
the Construction Manager or commencing · II t on of the geotextile will be construed as
Contractor's acceptance of the related work ofa 1 o ·
3.02 PLACEMENT
A. Geotextile installation shall
evaluations, by the CQ
the Contractor's sur
B. die all geotextile in such a manner as to ensure it is not damaged in any
way.
C. The Contractor ,1 take any necessary precautions to prevent damage to underlying materials
during placement of the geotextile.
D. After unwrapping the cushion geotextile from its opaque cover, the geotextile shall not be left
exposed for a period in excess of 15 days unless a longer exposure period is approved in writing by
the Geotextile Manufacturer.
E. The Contractor shall take care not to entrap stones, excessive dust, or moisture in the geotextile
during placement.
F. The Contractor shall anchor or weight all geotextile with sandbags, or the equivalent, to prevent
wind uplift.
G. The Contractor shall examine the entire geotextile surface after installation to ensure that no foreign
objects are present that may damage the geotextile or adjacent layers. The Contractor shall remove
any such foreign objects and shall replace any damaged geotextile.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Geotextile
YSC0634. TECHNJCALSPECIFICA TJONSS D 201905 I 5 REV-OJ Page 02771-4 Rev-01 May 2019
3.03 SEAMS AND OVERLAPS
A. On slopes steeper than 10 horizontal to I vertical, geotextiles shall be continuous down the slope;
that is, no horizontal seams are allowed. Horizontal seams shall be considered as any seam having
an alignment exceeding 45 degrees from being perpendicular to the slope contour lines, unless
otherwise approved by the Design Engineer. No horizontal seams shall be allowed within 5 feet of
the top or toe of the slopes.
B. Nonwoven geotextile seams shall be overlapped and continuously sewn. Thread shall by polymeric
with chemical and ultraviolet resistance properties equal or exceeding those of the geotextile.
C. Woven geotextile shall be overlapped and continuously sewn.
3.04 REPAIR
A. Any holes or tears in the geotextile shall be repaired using a patch made from the same geotextile.
If a tear exceeds 50 percent of the width of a roll, that roll sha be removed and replaced.
3.05 PLACEMENT OF SOIL MATERIALS
A. The Contractor shall place soil materials on top oft 1 · 1 such a manner as to ensure that:
1.
3. excess stresses are not produced in
B. Equipment shall not be driven direct
3.06 CONFORMANCE TESTING
A.
B.
C.
~ tile n aerials will be removed by the CQA Site Manager after
eiv at-th sit nd sent to a Geosynthetic CQA Laboratory for testing to
e requirements of this Section and the CQA Plan. This testing will be
. the CQA Plan, prior to the start of the work of this Section.
wi 11 be taken, by the CQA Site Manager, at a minimum frequency of one
feet (minimum of one).
The CQA Con ay increase the frequency of sampling in the event that test results do not
comply with requ rements of Subpart 2.01 of this Section until passing conformance test results are
obtained for all material that is received at the site. This additional testing shall be performed at the
expense of the Contractor.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geotextile
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICAT!ONSS,D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02771-5 Rev-OJ May 2019
D. The following conformance tests will be performed (results of which shall meet the requirements
specified in Table 02771):
Test Cushion Woven
Geo textile Geotextile
Procedure Procedure
Grab strength ASTM D4632 ASTMD4632
Mass per Unit Area ASTM D 5261 NIA
Puncture strength ASTM D 4833 ASTM D 4833
Permittivity ASTMD4491 ASTMD4491
A.0.S. ASTMD 4751 ASTMD4751
E. Any geotextile that is not certified in accordance with -art 1.04 of this Section, or that
conformance testing results do not comply with Subpart . I of this Section, will be rejected. The
Contractor shall replace the rejected material with ne, 8' 1al. All other rolls that are represented
by failing test results will also be rejected, unless ad i 'onal te · g is performed to further determine
the bounds of the failed material.
3.07 PROTECTION OF WORK
A.
B. In the event of damage, the Contrac
Construction Manager at the expense O
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND P
4.01 GENERAL
A.
B.
• Submitta
• Quality Con
• Shipping, handling, and storage.
• Layout survey.
• Mobilization.
• Rejected material.
• Overlaps and seaming.
and replacements to the satisfaction of the
• Rejected material removal, handling, re-testing, and repair.
• Temporary anchorage.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geotcxtile
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONSS D,201905 IS REV-OJ Page 02771-6 Rev-01 May 20 I 9
TABLE 02771-1
REQUIRED PROPERTY V ALOES FOR GEOTEXTILE
PROPERTIES QUALIFIERS
Liner System ProQerties
Interface Shear Strength Minimum
Physical Progerties
Mass per unit area Minimum
Apparent opening size Maximum
(095)
Permittivity Minimum
Grab strength Minimum
Tear strength Minimum
Puncture strength Minimum
Ultraviolet Resistance @ Minimum
500 hours
Note:
(1) Interface shear strength
2.03 ofthis Section.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-01
NONWOVEN WOVEN
CUSHION GEOTEXTILE
UNITS GEOTEXTILE SPECIFIED TEST METHOD
SPECIFIED VALUES
VALUES
degrees 23 NIA ASTMD53211
oz/yd2 16 NIA ASTMD 5261
mm 0.21 ASTMD4751
s·I ASTMD4491
lb ASTMD4632
lb ASTMD4533
700 ASTM D 6241
70 ASTM D4355
d by the CQA Consultant, in accordance with part
Geotextile
Page 02771-7 Rev-01 May 2019
SECTION 02772
GEOSYNTHETIC CLAY LINER (REV-01)
PART 1 -GENERAL
1.01 SCOPE
A.
B.
The Geosynthetic Installer shaJI furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision. transpottati.011,
eguip Lilent, and incidentals necessary for installation of the geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). The work
shall be carried out as specified herein and in accord ance with the Drawings and Construction
Quality Assurance (COA) Plan.
The work shall include, buL not be lim ited to, delivery, offloading, storage, pJacement anchorage,
and seaming of.the GCL.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02220 -Subgrade Preparation
Section 02770 -Geomembrane
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Drawings
B. Site CQA Plan
C. Latest Version American Societ o
A TM D 5887
ASTMD 5888
ntheti'c Cla
ASTM or Fl uid Loss of Clay Component of Geosynthetic Clay Liners
1.04 QUALIFICATIONS
A. GCL Manufacturer:
I. The Manufacturer shall be a well-established firm with more than five (5) years of
experience in the manufacturing ofGCL.
2. The GCL Manufacturer shall be responsible for the production ofGCL rolls and shall have
sufficient production capacity and qualified personnel to provide material meeting the
requirements of this Section and the construction schedule for this project.
B. GCL Installer:
l. The Geosynthetic Installer shall install the GCL and shall meet the requirements of
Section 02770 Subpa,t 1.04. Band this Section.
Cell SA and SB Lining ystcm Constrnction Geosynthetic Clay Liner
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS.D.20190515.REV-Ol Page 02772-1 Rev-0 I May 2019
2. The Geosynthetics Installer shall be responsible and shall provide sufficient resources for
field handling, deploying, temporarily restraining (against wind). and other aspects of the
deployment and installation of the GCL and other geosynthetic components of the project.
1.05 SUBMITT ALS
1.06
A. At least 7 days before transporting any GCL to the site, the Manufacturer shall provide the following
documentation to the Construction Manager for approval.
B.
A.
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
list of material prope1ties. including test methods utilized to analyze/confirm properties.
GCL samples.
projected delivery dates for this project.
a.
b. used outlined in
ection.
enhanced GCLs:
I.
2.
similar to the solution contained within
The Geosynthetic staller shall be aware of all monitoring and conformance testing reguired by the
COA Plan. This monitoring and testing. including random conformance testi11g of construction
materials and completed work, will be performed by the COA Consultant. l f nonconformances or
other deficiencies are found in the materials or completed work. the Geosynthetic Installer will be
required to repair the deficiency or replace the deficient materials at no additional cost to the Owner.
PART 2-PRODUCTS
2.01 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
A.
B.
The flux of the bentonite portion of the GCL shall be no greater than 1 x 1 o·8 m3/m2-sec. when
measured in a tlexible wall permeameter in accordance with ASTM D 5887 under an effective
confining stress of 5 pounds per square inch (psi}.
The GCL shall have the following minimum dimensions:
I. the minimum roll width shall be 15 feet: and
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geosynthetic Clay Liner
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATJONS5,D 20190515 REV-OJ Page 02772-2 Rev-OJ May 2019
2. the linear length shall be long enough to conform with the requirements specified in this
Section.
C. The bentonite used to fabricate the GCL shall be comprised of at least 88 percent sodium
montmorillonite.
D. The bentonite component of the GCL shall be applied at a mm1mum concentration of
0.75 pound per square foot (psQ, when measured at a water content ofO percent.
E. The GCL shall meet or exceed all required property valu es listed in Table 02772-1.
F. The bentonite will be adhered to the backing material(s) in a manner that prevents it from being
dislodged when transpo1ted. handled. alld installed in a manner prescribed by the Manufacturer.
The method used to hold the bentonite in place shall not be detrimental to other components of the
lining system.
G. The eotextil.e com onents of the GCL shall be woven and nonwoven and have a combined mass
per unit area of9 ounces per square yard (oz./SY).
H. The GCL shall be needle punched.
I.
2.02 INTERFACE SHEAR TESTING
A.
1.
b.
a textured 60-mil HDPE
and underl in the materials
d 250 sf for 48 hours for tests erformed at normal stre sses of
I 00, 00, and 400 psf, respectively. Shear rate shall be no more than 0.04
in.!n.ih. (I mm/min.).
results of this test shall have a eak a parent friction angle in excess of
22 degrees.
2. Hydrated GCL interface -the GCL shall be overlain bv a smooth 60-mil HDPE
geomembrane. Concrete sand shall be placed overlying and underlying the materials
being tested.
a. Before shearing. the GCL shall be hydrated with potable water under a loading
of 250 psf for 48 hours. The test sh al I be performed at normal stresses of I 0, 20.
and 40 psi at a shear rate of no more than 0.04 in.Im in . ( I mm/min.).
b. The results of this test shall have a peak apparent friction angle in excess of
11 degrees.
2.03 MANUFACTURING QUALITY CONTROL (MQC)
A. The GCL shall be manufactured with quality control procedw·es that meet or exceed generally
accepted indust1y standards.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geosvnthetic Clav Liner
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS D 20190515.REV-OI Page 02772-3 Rev-01 May 2019
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
The Manufacturer shall sample and test the GCL to demonstrate that the material complies with the
requirements of this Section.
Any GCL sample that does not comply with th is Section will result in rejection of the roll from
which the sample was obtained. The Manufacturer shall replace any rejected rolls.
If a GCL sample fails to meet the quality control requirements of this Section, the Construction
Manager will require that the Manufacturer sample and test, at the expense of the Manufacturer,
rolls manufactured in the same lot. or at the same time, as the failing roll. Sampling and testing of
rolls shall continue until a pattern of acceptable test results is established to determine the bounds
of the failed roll(s). All rolls pertaining to failed tests shall be rejected.
Additional sample testing may be performed, at the Manufacturer's discretion and expense, to more
closely identify the extent of any non-complying rolls and/or to qualify individual rolls.
2.04 PACKING AND LABELING
2.05
A. GCL shall be su
B.
I.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A. The Geosynthetic anufacturer shall be liable for any damage to the GCL incurred prior to and
during h·ansportation to the site.
B. Handling, storage, and care of the GCL at the site prior to and following installation, are the
responsibility of the Geosynthetic Installer. until final acceptance by the Owner.
C. The GCL shall be stored and handled in accordance with ASTM D 5888.
D. The Geosynthetic Installer shall be liable for all damage to the materials incurred prior to and during
transportation to the site including hydration ofthe GCL prior to placement.
E. The GCL shall be on-site at least 14 days prior to the scheduled installation date to allow for
completion of conformance testing described in Subpart 3.07 of thi Section.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 FAMILIARIZATION
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geosvnthetic Clay Liner
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICA TJONS5.D 201905 I 5.REV-01 Page 02772-4 Rev-OJ May 2019
A. Prior to implementing any of the work described in this Section. the Geosynthetic Installer shall
carefully inspect the installed work of all other Sections and verif-v that all work is complete to the
point where the installation of this Section may properly commence without adverse impact.
B. If the Geosynthetic lnstaller has any concerns regarding the installed work of other Sections, he
should notify the Construction Manager in writing prior to commencing the work. Failure to notify
the Construction Manager or commencing installati0n of the GCL will be construed a Geosynthetic
Installer's acceptance of the related work of all other Sections.
C. A pre-installation meeting shall be held to coordinate the installation of the GCL with the installation
of other components of the Ii ning system.
3.02 SURFACE PREPARATION
3.03
A. The Geosynthetics Jnstaller shall provide certification in writiL1g that the surface on which the GCL
will be i'nstalled is acceptable. This certification of acceptance shall be given to the Construction
Manager prior to commencement of geosynthetics installation in the area under consideration.
S ecial care shall be taken to maintain the re ared soil sut :ao .
B.
A.
B.
C.
GCL in such a manner that it is not dama ed in an wa .
sufficient! wei ted with sandba s to revent their
D. Standard (non oolvm D• nhanced) GCL shall be hydrated by the Geosvnthetic Installer once in place
by direct sprayitJ'g W(l h water. Hydrated GCL shall be defined as greater than 50% mo.isrure content
when tested in accordance with ASTM D 2216. To mo.nitor the hydration process, small, shallow,
flat bottom containers sl1aH be deployed on the GCL surface by the COA Site Manager during water
spraying to measure the amow1t (depth) of water applied. Mfoimum depth of water will be 1/8-
inch. During hot, dry periods. additional water may be required. Upon completion of the direct
spraying with water, the GCL shall be covered with the overlying econdary geomernbrane within
2 hours. Samples of the hydrated GCL wi ll be obtained by the COA SHe Manager from locations
of destructive tests in the secondary geornembrane. GCL sample holes shall be repaired in
accordance with Part3.06 of this Section. Polymer enhanced GCL shall not be prehvdrated.
E. The GCL shall be installed with the woven geotextile faci ng. up (against the overlying
geomembrane ).
3.04 OVERLAPS
A. On slopes steeper than 10:1 (horizontal:vertican. all GCL shall be continuous down the slope, i.e ..
no horizontal seams shall be allowed on the slope. Horizontal seams shall be cons·idered as any
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Geosynthetic Clay Liner
YSC0634 TECHNJCALSPECIFICA TIONSS.D.2019051 S.REV-01 Page 02772-5 Rev-01 May 2019
B.
C.
seam having an alignment exceeding 30 degrees from being perpendicular to the slope contour lines,
u11less otherwise approved by the Construction Manager.
All GCL sha.11 be overlapped in accordance with the Manufacturer's recommended procedures. At
a minimum, along the length (i.e., the sides) of the GCL placed on slopes steeper than 10: I
{horizontal:ve1tical), the overlap shall b 12 inches, and along the width (i.e., the ends) the overlap
shall be 24 inches.
At a minimum, along the length (i.e., the sides) of the GCL placed on non-sloped areas (i.e. lopes
no steeper tban I 0: I), the overlap shall be 6-inches. and along the width (i.e., the ends) the overlap
shall be I 2-inches.
3.05 MATERIALS IN CONT ACT WITH THE GCL
A. 1 nstallation of other components of th I iner system shall be carefully performed to avoid damage
to the GCL.
B. Construction Manaoer a
C.
3.06 REPAIR
3.07
A.
B.
C.
A. Sam .les o th GCL w, ·
Laborato r Lin ensure conformance with the re uirements of tbis Section and the C A
Plan. The Geo Y4l elic Installer shall assist the COA Site Manager in obtaining conformance
samples. The Geosynthetic Installer hall account for this testing in the installation schedule.
B. At a minimum. the following conformance tests will be performed at a minimum frequency rate of
one sample per I 00.000 square feet: mass per unit area (A TM D 5993) and bentonite moisture
content (ASTM D 5993). At a minimum, the following conformance tests will be performed at a
frequency of one sample per 400,000 square feet: index flux {ASTM D 5887). If the GCL
Manufacturer provides material that requires sampling at a frequency (due to lot size. shipment size.
etc.) resulting in one sample per less than 90 percent of I 00,000 square feet (90.000 square feet),
then the Geosynthetic Installer shall pay tbe cost for all additional testing.
C. The COA Consultant may jncrease the frequency of sampling in the event that test results do not
comply with the requirements of Subpart 2.0 I of this Section until passing conformance test results
are obtained for all material that is received at the site. This additional testing shall be perfom1ed at
the expense of the Geosynthetic Installer.
Cell 5A and 5B Lining System Construction Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Rev-OJ May20!9 YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515 REV-OJ Page 02772-6
D. Any GCL that is not certified by the Manufacturer in accordance with Subpait 1.05 of this Section
or that does not meet the requirements specified in Subpart 2.0 I shall be rejected and replaced by
the Geosynthetic Installer, at the expense of the Geosynthetic Installer.
3.08 PROTECTION OF WORK
The Geosynthetic Installer shall protect all work of this Section. A.
B. In the event of damage. the Geosynthetic In staller shall immediately make all repairs and
replacements necessary to the approval of the Construction Manager. at the expense of the
Geosyntl1etic Installer.
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A.
B. The fol lowing are considered incidenta l to the Work.
• Submittals.
• Quality Control.
• Shipping. handling, and storage.
• Overlaps and seaming.
• Layout survey.
• Mobilization.
• Re'iected material.
•
•
•
•
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
YSC0634 TECHN!CALSPECIFICATIONS5,D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02772-7
Geosynthetic Clay Liner
Rev-01 May 2019
PROPERTIES
Liner System Pmpcnics
Interface Shear Strength
GCL Properties
Bentonite Content4
Bentonite Swell Index
Bentonite Fluid Loss
Hydraulic Index Flux
1 otcs:
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction
TABLE 02772-1
REQUIRED GCL PROPERTY VALUES
QUALIFIERS SPECIFIED VALUES
minimum degrees 22(la)
minimum degrees 11 Ob>
minimum lb/ft3 0.75
minimum mL/2g 24
maximum mL ll
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATJONSS.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 02772-8
TEST METHOD
ASTM D 6243 (2>
ASTM D 624312'
ASTMD 5993
ASTMD 5890
ASTMD 5891
ASTM D 58873
Geosvnthetic Clay Liner
Rev-OJ May 2019
SECTION 02773
GEONET
PART 1-GENERAL
1.01 SCOPE
A. The Geosynthetic Installer shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation,
equipment, and incidentals necessary for installation of the geonet. The work shall be carried out
as specified herein and in accordance with the Drawings and Construction Quality Assurance (CQA)
Plan.
B. The work shall include, but not be limited to, delivery, offloading, storage, placement, anchorage,
and seaming of the geonet.
C. 300-mil geonet shall be installed above the secondary g tnbrane to form the primary leak
detection system. 200-mil geonet shall be installed ove ·1 ' g the butt seams of the tertiary Drain
Liner™ geomembrane.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
Section 02220 -Subgrade Preparation
Section 02225 -Drainage Aggregate
Section 02616 -Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
Section 02770 -Geomembrane
Section 02771 -Geotextile
1.03 REFERENCES
A.
B. Site C
ASTM D792 andard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Plastics by
Displacement
ASTM Dl505 Standard Test Method for Density of Plastics by the Density-Gradient Technique
ASTM Dl603 Standard Test Method for Carbon Black in Olefin Plastics
ASTM D4218 Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon Black Content in
Polyethylene Compounds by Muffle-Furnace Technique
ASTM D4716 Standard Test Method for Constant Head Hydraulic Transmissivity (In-Place
Flow) of Geotextiles and Geotextile Related Products
ASTM D5199 Standard Test Method for Measuring Nominal Thickness ofGeosynthetics
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geonet
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D,20190515.REV-01 Page 02773-1 Rev-0 I May 2019
1.04 QUALIFICATIONS
A. Geonet Manufacturer:
1. The Manufacturer shall be a well-established firm with more than five (5) years of
experience in the manufacturing of geonet.
2. The Manufacturer shall be responsible for the production of geonet rolls and shall have
sufficient production capacity and qualified personnel to provide material meeting the
requirements of this Section and the construction schedule for this project.
B. Geonet Installer:
I. The Geosynthetic Installer shall meet the requirements of Subpart 1.04. B of
Section 02770, and this Section.
2. The Geosynthetics Installer shall be responsible and hall provide sufficient resources for
field handling, deploying, temporarily restraining ainst wind and re-curling), and other
aspects of the deployment and installation ofthe et and other geosynthetic components
of the project.
1.05 SUBMITT ALS
A. At least 7 days before transporting any r
following documentation to the Construction 1a e or approval.
anufactlirer shall provide the
l. list of material properties, ·
2. geonet samples.
3.
4.
a.
b.
C.
Section.
QC) certificates for each shit't's production for which
a p -cluced, signed by responsible parties employed by the
el as the production manager). MQC certificates shall include:
in l ding description oftest methods used, outlined in
ftliis Section.
n that the geonet meets all the properties outlined in Subpart 2.01 of this
1.06 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE (CQA)
A. The Geosynthetic Installer shall ensure that the materials and methods used for producing and
handling the geonet meet the requirements of the Drawings and this Section. Any material or
method that does not conform to these documents, or to alternatives approved in writing by the
Design Engineer, will be rejected and shall be repaired or replaced, at the Geosynthetic Installer's
expense.
B. The Geosynthetic Installer shall be aware of all monitoring and conformance testing required by the
CQA Plan. This monitoring and testing, including random conformance testing of construction
materials and completed work, will be performed by the CQA Consultant. If nonconformances or
other deficiencies are found in the materials or completed work, the Geosynthetic Installer will be
required to repair the deficiency or replace the deficient materials at now additional cost to the
Owner.
Cell 5A and 513 Lining $ys1cm Construction Geonet
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS.D,20190S IS.REV-OJ Page 02773-2 Rev-0 I May 2019
PART 2 -PRODUCTS
2.01 GEONET PROPERTIES
A. The Manufacturer shall furnish geonet having properties that comply with the required property
values shown on Table 02773-1.
B. In addition to documentation of the property values listed in Table 02773-1, the geonet shall contain
a maximum of one percent by weight of additives, fillers, or extenders (not including carbon black)
and shall not contain foaming agents or voids within the ribs of the geonet.
2.02 MANUFACTURING QUALITY CONTROL (MQC)
A. The geonet shall be manufactured with MQC procedures that meet or exceed generally accepted
industry standards.
B. Any geonet sample that does not comply with the Specificali ns will result in rejection of the roll
from which the sample was obtained. The Geonet Manufaotor r shall replace any rejected rolls at
no additional cost to Owner.
C. Ifa geonet sample fails to meet the MQC requireme
shall sample and test each roll manufactured, in
Sampling and testing of rolls shall continue u 1t
D. Additional sample testing may be perfonne
to more closely identify any non-complying ro
E. Sampling shall, in general, be per
repair is not required. The Manufact
100,000 square feet to demon trate t
portions of the geonet material such that
a nd test the geonet, at a minimum, once every
prope1 ies conform to the values specified in Table
02773-1.
F.
Procedure
ASTM D 792 or D 1505
ASTMD 5199
ASTMD 1603
G. The hydraulic transmissivity test (ASTM D 4716) in Table 02773-1 need not be performed at a
frequency of one per 100,000 square feet. However, the Geonet Manufacturer will certify that this
test has been performed on a sample of geonet identical to the product that will be delivered to the
Site. The Geonet Manufacturer shall provide test results as part of MQC documentation.
H. The Geonet Manufacturer shall comply with the certification and submittal requirements of this
Section.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geonet
YSCD634 TECHNICALSPECJFICATJONSS D 20190515 REV-OJ Page 02773-3 Rev-01 May 2019
2.03 LABELING
A. Geonet shall be supplied in rolls labeled with the following information:
1. manufacturer's name;
2. product identification;
3. lot number;
4. roll number; and
5. roll dimensions.
2.04 TRANSPORTATION
A. Transportation of the geonet shall be the responsibility of the Geonet Manufacturer. The Geonet
Manufacturer shall be liable for all damages to the materials incurred prior to and during
transportation to the site.
B. Geonet shall be delivered to the site at least 7 days before , e, cheduled date of deployment to allow
the CQA Site Manager adequate time to invento . e oeonet rolls and obtain additional
conformance samples, if needed. The Geosynthetic In alter notify the Construction Manager
a minimum of 48 hours prior to any delivery.
2.05 HANDLING AND STORAGE
2.06
A.
B.
A.
the geonet prior to and following i
for all damages to the materials inc
the Owner.
reqt i d, shall be performed in accordance with the CQA Plan. The
all assist the CQA Site Manager in obtaining conformance samples, if
sultant has the option of collecting samples at the manufacturing facility.
C. Samples shall be taken at a minimum frequency of one sample per 200,000 square feet with a
minimum of one sample per lot. If the Geonet Manufacturer provides material that requires
sampling at a frequency (due to lot size, shipment size, etc.) resulting in one sample per less than 90
percent of 200,000 square feet (180,000 square feet), then the Geosynthetic Installer shall pay the
cost for all additional testing.
D. The CQA Consultant may increase the frequency of sampling in the event that test results do not
comply with the requirements of Subpart 2.01 of this Section until passing conformance test results
are obtained for all material that is received at the Site. This additional testing shall be performed
at the expense of the Geosynthetic Installer.
E. Any geonet that are not certified in accordance with Subpart 1.05 of this Section, or that
conformance testing indicates do not comply with Subpart 2.01 of this Section, will be rejected by
the CQA Consultant. The Geonet Manufacturer shall replace the rejected material with new material
at no additional cost to the Owner.
Cell 5A and 58 Lining System Construction Geonet
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSSD 20190515 REV-OJ Page 02773-4 Rev-OJ May 2019
PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 HANDLING AND PLACEMENT
A. The geonet shall be handled in such a manner as to ensure it is not damaged in any way.
B. Precautions shall be taken to prevent damage to underlying layers during placement of the geonet.
C. The geonet shall be installed in a manner that minimizes wrinkles.
D. Care shall be taken during placement of geonet to prevent dirt or excessive dust in the geonet that
could cause clogging and/or damage to the adjacent materials.
3.02 JOINING AND TYING
A. Adjacent panels of geonet shall be overlapped by at least 4 inches. These overlaps shall be secured
by tying with nylon ties.
B. Tying shall be achieved by plastic fasteners or polyme Tying devices shall be white or
yellow for easy inspection. Metallic devices shall not b u e .
C. Tying shall be performed at a minimum interva long the geonet roll edges and
2 feet along the geonet roll ends.
3.03 REPAIR
A.
3.04 PRODUCT PROTECTTO
A.
B. In the
Cell SA and SB Lining Svstem Construction
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS.D 20 I 905 I S.REV-01
the geonet, the Geosynthetic Installer shall immediately make all repairs
is Section.
Geonet
Page 02773-5 Rev-0 I May 2019
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. Providing for and complying with the requirements set forth in this Section for geonet will be
measured as in-place square feet (SF), as measured by the surveyor, to the limits shown on the
Drawings, and payment will be based on the unit price provided on the Bid Schedule.
B. The following are considered incidental to the Work:
• Submittals.
• Quality Control.
• Shipping, handling, and storage.
• Overlaps and seaming.
• Layout survey.
• Offloading.
• Mobilization.
• Rejected material.
• Rejected material removal, handling, re-tesrin°
• Temporary anchorage.
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Geonet
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS.D,20190515 REV-01 Page 02773-6 Rev-0 I May 2019
TABLE 02773-1
REQUIRED GEONET PROPERTY VALVES
PROPERTIES QUALIFIERS UNITS 300-MIL 200-MIL TEST METHOD
GEONET GEONET
SPECIFIED11l SPECIFJED<ll
VALUES VALUES
Resin Density Minimum glee 0.94 0.94 ASTM D792 or DI 505
Carbon Black Content Range % 2.0-3.0 2.0-3.0 ASTM D1603 or D4218
Thickness Minimum mils 300 200 ASTMD5199
Transmissivity<2J Minimum m2 I sec 8 X J0·3 Ix 10·3 ASTMD4716
Notes: (I) All values (except transmissivity) represent average roll values.
(2) Transmissivity shall be measured using water at 68°F with a gradient of 0.1 undc , onfining pressure of 7,000 lb/ft2• The geonet
shall be placed in the testing device between 60-mil HDPE smooth gcomcmhr easurcmcnts are taken one hour after
application of confining pressure.
(3) Interface shear strength testing shall be performed, by the CQA Con ult n n accord
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Geonet
YSC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5,D 20190515 REV-OJ Page 02773-7 Rev-OJ May 2019
PART 1-GENERAL
1.01 DESCRIPTION OF WORK
SECTION 03400
CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE
A. The Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, transportation and equipment necessary to
construct a cast-in-place spillway crossing as shown on the Drawings and as specified herein.
B. The Work shall include, but not be limited to, procurement, delivery, subgrade preparation,
formwork, concrete placement, control joints, surface treatment, and curing.
1.02 RELATED SECTIONS
None.
1.03 REFERENCES
A. Drawings
B.
C.
ACI 117
ACI 211.1
ACI 301
ACI 3
ACI 347R
Normal, Heavyweight, and Mass Concrete
ixing Transporting, and Placing Concrete
Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete
D. Latest version of the ASTM International (ASTM) standards:
ASTM A 615 Deformed and Plain Billet-Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement
ASTM C 33 Concrete Aggregates
ASTM C 39 Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens
ASTM C 94 Ready-Mixed Concrete
ASTM C 127 Specific Gravity and Adsorption of Coarse Aggregate
ASTM C 128 Specific Gravity and Adsorption of Fine Aggregate
ASTM C 143 Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete
ASTM C 150 Portland Cement
Cell SA and 58 Lining System ConstruclioD Cast-in-Place Concrete
SC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515,REV-01 Page 03400-1 Rev-01 May 2019
Sheet Materials for Curing Concrete
Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory
Liquid Membrane -Forming Compounds for Curing Concrete
Time of Setting of Concrete Mixtures by Penetration Resistance
Chemical Admixtures for Concrete
ASTM C 171
ASTMC 192
ASTMC309
ASTM C403
ASTM C494
ASTM C 618 Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a Mineral
Admixture in Portland Cement Concrete
1.04 SUBMITTALS
A. At least 7 days prior to construction of the concrete, Contractor shall submit a mix design for the
type of concrete. Submit a complete list of materials including types, brands, sources, amount of
cement, fly ash, pozzolans, retardants, and admixtures, and~ licable reference specifications for
the following:
I.
2. Type and quantity of cement.
3. Brand, type,
admixture.
4. Compressive strength bas
B. Delivery Tickets:
quantity of each
1. ith each load of concrete delivered, one for Contractor's
n Manager, with the following information:
e.
-nixed concrete plant, operator, and job location.
men admix tu res, if any, and brand name.
ntent in bags per cubic yard (CY) of concrete, and mix design.
mnber, time loaded, and name of dispatcher.
· unt of concrete (CY) in load delivered. £
g. Gallons of water added at job, if any, and slump of concrete after water was added.
C. Delivery
1. The Concrete Manufacturer shall be liable for all damage to the materials incurred prior to
and during transportation to the Site.
1.05 MANUFACTURER QUALITY CONTROL (MQC)
A. Aggregates shall be sampled and tested in accordance with ASTM C 33.
B. Concrete test specimens shall be made, cured, and stored in conformity with ASTM C 192 and tested
in conformity with ASTM C 39.
C. Slump shall be determined in accordance with ASTM C 143.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Cast-in-Place Concrete
SC0634.TECHNICALSPECIFJCATIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 03400-2 Rev-0 I May 20 J 9
1.06 LIMITING REQUIREMENTS
A. Unless otherwise specified, each concrete mix shall be designed and concrete shall be controlled
within the following limits:
1. Concrete slump shall be kept as low as possible, consistent with proper handling and
thorough compaction. Unless otherwise authorized by the Construction Manager, slump
shall not exceed 5 inches.
2. The admixture content, batching method, and time of introduction to the mix shall be in
accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations for minimum shrinkage and for
compliance with this Section. A water-reducing admixture may be included in concrete.
PART 2-PRODUCTS
2.01 PROPORTIONING AND DESIGN MIXES
A. Concrete shall have the following properties.
I. 3,000 pounds per square inch (psi), 28-day c
2. Slump range of 1 to 5 inches.
3. Coarse Aggregate Gradation, AST ·
B. Retarding admixture in proportions recommena
and setting time from 1 to 5 hours.
2.02 CONCRETE MATERIALS
A.
B. oils, acids, alkalis, salts, organic materials, and other
C. Aggregates shall not contain any substance which may
w the alkalis in the cement, and shall not possess properties or
n to have specific unfavorable effects in concrete.
D. J ay u water reducing chemical admixture. The water reducing admixture shall
-494 Type A. The chemical admixture shall be approved by the Construction
Manager.
2.03 REINFORCING STEEL
A. The reinforcing steel shall be Grade 60 in accordance with ASTM A 615.
B. Unless otherwise noted on the Drawings, all reinforcement bars shall be No. 3 (3/8-inch diameter)
in accordance with ASTM A 615 and welded wire fabric shall be sized as 6 x 6, Wl.4 x Wl.4.
PART 3 -EXECUTION
3.01 BATCHING, MIXING, AND TRANSPORTING CONCRETE
A. Batching shall be performed according to ASTM C 94, ACI 301, and ACI 304R, except as modified
herein. Batching equipment shall be such that the concrete ingredients are consistently measured
within the following tolerances: 1 percent for cement and water, 2 percent for aggregate, and
3 percent for admixtures. Concrete Manufacturer shall furnish mandatory batch ticket information
for each load of ready mix concrete.
Cell SA and 58 Lining System Construction Cast-in-Place Concrete
SC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONS5 D 20190515,REV-01 Page 03400-3 Rev-OJ May 2019
B. Machine mixing shall be performed according to ASTM C 94 and ACI 30 l. Mixing shall begin
within 30 minutes after the cement has been added to the aggregates. Concrete shall be placed
within 90 minutes of either addition of mixing water to cement and aggregates or addition of cement
to aggregates. Additional water may be added, provided that both the specified maximum slump
and water-cement ratio are not exceeded. When additional water is added, an additional
30 revolutions of the mixer at mixing speed is required. Dissolve admixtures in the mixing water
and mix in the drum to uniformly distribute the admixture throughout the batch.
C. Transport concrete from the mixer to the forms as rapidly as practicable. Prevent segregation or
loss of ingredients. Clean transporting equipment thoroughly before each batch. Do not use
aluminum pipe or chutes. Remove concrete which has segregated in transporting and dispose of as
directed.
3.02 SUBGRADE PREPARATION
A. Subgrade shall be graded to the lines and elevations as shown on the Drawings.
B. Standing water, mud, debris, and foreign matter shall be re n ed before concrete is placed.
3.03 PLACING CONCRETE
A. Place concrete in accordance with ACI 301, A
B.
C.
provide sufficient h
while curing. Limit
application---.
·ease below 50 °P while curing. Cover concrete and
111imum adjacent to both the formwork and the structure
to 5 °P in any 1 hour and 50 °F per 24 hours after heat
P. Concrete shall not e dropped a distance greater than 5 feet.
G. Place concrete with aid of internal mechanical vibrator equipment capable of9,000 cycles/minute.
Transmit vibration directly to concrete.
H. Hot Weather:
1. Comply with ACI 304R.
2. Concrete temperature shall not exceed 90°P.
3. At air temperatures of 80°P or above, keep concrete as cool as possible during placement
and curing. Cool forms by water wash.
4. Evaporation reducer shall be used in accordance with manufacturer recommendations
(Subpart 2.02).
Cell SA and SB Lining System Construction Cast-in-Place Concrete
SC0634 TECHNICALSPECIFICATIONSS D 20190515,REV-OJ Page 03400-4 Rev-0 I May 20 I 9
3.04 CURING AND PROTECTION
A. Immediately after placement, protect concrete from premature drying, excessively hot or cold
temperatures, and mechanical injury in accordance with ACI 308.
B. Immediately after placement, protect concrete from plastic shrinkage by applying evaporation
reducer in accordance with manufacturer recommendations (Subpart 2.02).
C. Maintain concrete with minimal moisture loss at relatively constant temperature for period
necessary for hydration of cement and hardening of concrete (Subpart 2.02).
D. Protect from damaging mechanical disturbances, particularly load stresses, heavy shock, and
excessive vibration.
E. Membrane curing compound shall be spray applied at a coverage of not more than 300 square feet
per gallon. Unformed surfaces shall be covered with curing compound within 30 minutes after final
finishing. If forms are removed before the end of the speci ed curing period, curing compound
shall be immediately applied to the formed surfaces before tlie' dry out.
F. Curing compound shall be suitably protected against
G. Film curing will not be allowed.
3.05 FORMS
A.
B.
C.
3.06 CONTROL JOINTS
A.
B .
3.07 SLAB FINISHES
plast:i q,s set flush with finished surface or 114-inch wide joints
iately after pouring or cut with a diamond saw within 12 hours after
al led in a 15 foot by 15 foot grid spacing along the slab unless otherwise
ngineer. Control joints shall be no greater than 1 1h inches below the
A. Unformed surfaces of concrete shall be screeded and given an initial float finish followed by
additional floating, and troweling where required.
B. Concrete shall be broom finished.
3.08 SURVEY
A. The Surveyor shall locate the features of the concrete structure. The dimensions, locations and
elevations of the features shall be presented on the Surveyor's Record Drawings.
Cell SA and 58 Lining ystcm Construction Cast-in-Place Concrete
SC0634. TECHNICALSPECIFICA TIONS5 D.20190515,REV-O 1 Page 03400-5 Rev-01 May 2019
PART 4 -MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT
4.01 GENERAL
A. Providing for and complying with the requirements set forth in this Section for Cast-In-Place
Concrete will be measured as lump sum (LS) and payment will be based on the unit price provided
on the Bid Schedule.
B. The following are considered incidental to the work:
• Mobilization.
• Submittals.
• Quality Control.
• Excavation.
• Subgrade preparation.
• Concrete batching, mixing, and delivery.
• Layout and as-built Record Survey.
• Subgrade preparation.
• Reinforcing steel.
• Fonnwork.
• Concrete placement and finishing.
• Saw cutting and control joints.
• Rejected material removal, handli g,
ell 5A and 5B Linirig ystcm Construction Cast-in-Place Concrcle
SC0634 TECHNJCALSPECIFICATIONS5.D 20190515 REV-01 Page 03400-6 Rev-01 May 2019
APPENDIXD
Design Calculations
Client:
Energy
Fuels -----
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA & SB
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Project No.: SC0634A
Title of Computations SEEPAGE ANALYSIS OF SLIME DRAIN SYSTEM
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked by:
(peer reviewer)
Computations Checked
by:
Computations
backchecked by:
(originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Signature
Title Project Professional
Signature ()~
Title Principal
Signature ()~
Printed Name
Title Principal
Signature
Printed Name R
Title Project Professional
Signature
Printed Name
Title Senior Principal Engineer
Approval notes:
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By Checked by
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
1 May 2019
10May2019
Date
10May2019
Date
17 May 2019
Date
29 May2019
Date
Approval
Geosyntec t>
consultants
This page was left blank.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
GeosyntecD
SEEPAGE ANALYSIS OF SLlME DRAIN SYSTEM
WHITE MESA MILL, CELLS SA AND SB
BLANDING, UTAH
1. OBJECTIVE
consultants
The objective of this calculation package is to demonstrate that the proposed slime drain
system is capable of dewatering the tailings within a reasonable time at the Energy Fuels
Resources (USA), Inc.'s (EFR) White Mesa Mill (WMM) Cells 5A and 5B in Blanding,
Utah (Site).
A finite element (FE) seepage analysis of a representative cross section of the cells was
performed to evaluate the performance of the slime drain system regarding its capability
to dewater the tailings. Results of this analysis will be used to suppo1t design
recommendations regarding slime drain spacing, dimensions, and material properties.
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND
This project involves the construction of two 40-acre (solution surface area), double lined
tailing cells (Cells 5A and 5B) that are approximately 46-ft deep at their deepest point
(Cell SB) and 28-ft deep at the shallowest point with an average depth of 37 ft. The liquid
level in the cells will be kept to a minimum of 3 ft below the top of the perimeter berm.
Therefore, the maximum depth of liquid in the cells will be 43 ft at the start of dewatering
with an average and minimum depth of liquid of 34 and 25 ft, respectively.
The cells will be filled with -28 mesh (U.S. No. 30 sieve) tailings, largely consisting of
fine sands and silts, with some clay. The tailings will be placed within the cells in a slurry
form under the surface of the free liquid contained within the cells.
Geosyntec understands that EFR is interested in limiting the liquid head at the centerline
between the drains to less than one foot within a reasonable time after placement of
tailings in the cells and starting the dewatering process. To achieve this goal, Geosyntec
has proposed to install a series of strip geocomposite drains on top of the geomembrane
liner system within the cells. The strip geocomposite consists of a geotextile wrapped
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) core, 1-inch thick, 12-inch wide, with a transmissivity
of 29 gal/min/ft. The strip geocomposites will be placed on a 40-ft spacing and beneath
3-inch thick, 18-inch wide sand layer (sand filled bags or woven geotextile wrapped
around the sand layer). The sand will have a minimum saturated hydraulic conductivity
of lx10-4 centimeters per second (emfs) and will be wrapped in a woven geotextile. The
sand layer is utilized to increase the drainable surface area of the drains and provide
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx Page I of6
Geosyntec t>
consultants
additional filter protection. The strip geocomposites are connected to 4-inch diameter
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) header pipes which drain liquid to the sump.
A typical detail of the slime drain system is illustrated in Figure 1. The following sections
demonstrate that the proposed slime drain system would be able to dewater the tailings
contained in Cells 5A and 5B within a reasonable time.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Seepage Analysis
Dewatering of tailings through the slime drain system was evaluated by performing
seepage analysis using the computer program SEEP/W [GEO-SLOPE, 2018]. SEEP/W
is a finite element (FE) program that can mathematically simulate the physical process of
water flow through various soil layers. The seepage analysis was performed under
transient (time dependent) conditions to simulate the dewatering process.
3.2 Model Description
A representative cross section of the cells, consisting of two slimes drain collectors, was
developed in SEEP/W. The 12-inch wide slimes drain collectors were placed with a 40-
ft center-to-center spacing. The left and right boundaries of the model were extended
20 ft (i.e., half of the drain spacing) from the centerline of the drains representing zero-
flow conditions due to the symmetric nature of the flow. An average depth of saturated
tailings (i.e., 34 ft) was considered. As a result, the total model height and width are
approximately 34 ft and 80 ft, respectively.
The bottom of the model was sloped at 1 percent towards the drains 1• A 3-inch thick sand
layer was modeled immediately above the strip geocomposite and extended 9 inches to
either sides from the centerline of the drain to simulate the 3-inch thick, 18-inch wide
sand bag. The geometry of the model and the FE mesh are shown in Figure 2. The
seepage analysis was performed under transient conditions until the tailings have been
dewatered. For the purpose of this design, the tailings have been reasonably dewatered
when the maximum liquid head on the liner has dropped to less than one foot above the
liner system.
1 Model considers 1 % cross slope into slimes drain collectors. The most downgradient slope was modeled
to conservatively flow back to the slimes drain collector to prevent unnecessary liquid build-up on the
bottom right corner of the model wherein a zero-flow boundary condition was assumed (as shown in
Figure 2). This downgradient slope will actually flow into the next slimes drain collector (i.e., liquid flow
is not impeded on the bottom right corner of the model).
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx Page 2 of6
Geosyntec t>
consultants
3.3 Material Properties
As indicated in Section 2, the tailings will be placed within the cells in a slurry form. In
April 2015, a report on the characterization of tailings placed in Cells 2 and 3 (hereafter
referred to as the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report) at WMM was prepared [MWH,
2015]. The tailings analyzed in the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report were processed
at the mill and were placed in Cells 2 and 3 in a similar manner anticipated in Cells 5A
and 5B. As a result, the analysis performed and resulting tailings properties identified in
the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report are representative of tailings to be placed in
Cells 5A and 5B [MWH, 2015].
Table 1 summarizes the estimated saturated hydraulic conductivities of the tailings. As
shown, the weighted average of the horizontal and vertical saturated hydraulic
conductivities are approximately lx10-5 emfs and 4x10-6 emfs, respectively. It should be
noted that among the samples tested for saturated hydraulic conductivity testing, the
2W3 (7.0'-7.8') sample, which was classified as a sand-slime tailing, has a vertical
saturated hydraulic conductivity (equal to 3.3x10-6 emfs) that is comparable to the
estimated vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity for the tailings.
In order to model the flow of water during tailings dewatering under saturated and
unsaturated conditions, the water retention curve and the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity function for the tailings are a necessary input to the seepage model. The
water retention curve mathematically expresses the relationship between the volumetric
water content of the tailings and the soil suction. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
function describes the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the tailings for the entire
range of soil suction.
A built-in pedotransfer function in SEEP/W was used to estimate the water retention
curve of the tailings based on the porosity, liquid limit, and particle size distribution curve
of the tailings. The pedotransfer function was based on the method proposed by
Kovacs [1981] which was modified to better represent materials such as tailings from
hard-rock mines and clay type soils [GEO-SLOPE, 2018]. The porosity of the tailings
was estimated to be approximately 0.45 [MWH, 2016] and the weighted average of the
liquid limit of the tailings was estimated to be approximately 32 percent (see Table 2).
SEEP/W utilizes the diameter for which 60 percent of the particles are finer (i.e., D6o) and
the diameter for which only 10 percent of the particles are finer (i.e., D10), both of which
are obtained from the particle size distribution curve. Figure 3 shows the compiled
particle size distribution curves of the tailings from the 2015 Tailings Characterization
Report [MWH, 2015]. Based on Figure 3 and the particle size distribution curve for the
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx Page 3 of6
Geosyntec t>
consultants
2W3 (7.0'-7.8') sample, a D6o of 0.1 millimeters (mm) and a D10 of 0.001 mm were
considered to be representative of the tailings.
Figure 4(a) shows the SEEP/W-estimated water retention curve of the tailings. The figure
also shows the water retention curve of sand. A typical water retention curve of sand,
available in SEEP/W, was assumed for the sand bags. Using the water retention curves
of the tailings and sand, the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for a given soil suction
was estimated as a fraction of the saturated hydraulic conductivity using the built-in
estimating function in SEEP/W based on the method proposed by Fredlund et al. [1994].
Figure 4(b) shows the SEEP/W-estimated unsaturated hydraulic conductivity functions
for the tailings and sand.
Table 3 summarizes the hydraulic properties of the materials used in SEEP/W. The
tailings and sand were both modeled in SEEP/W assuming a saturated/unsaturated
material model.
3.4 Initial and Boundary Conditions
An initial water table at the top of the tailings (i.e., at elevation 34 ft) was assumed as the
initial condition to simulate the start of dewatering of tailings. A zero-flow boundary
condition was applied to the left and right boundaries of the FE model (see Figure 2).
The bottom of the FE model was defined as zero-flow boundary conditions except where
the slimes drains were located. A seepage face boundary condition was applied along the
slime drains. A seepage face boundary condition in SEEP/W simulates a zero pressure
head condition during saturated conditions and a no flow condition during unsaturated
conditions within the boundary [GEO-SLOPE, 2018].
4. SEEPAGE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Appendix A provides the seepage analysis results for a representative cross section of the
cells with two slimes drain collectors. Transient seepage analysis was performed to
simulate the dewatering of tailings. The water pressure head distribution across the FE
model was plotted at the initial stage (immediately after filling the cells) and at select
time periods to show the subsequent drop of the liquid level within the cell as a result of
the dewatering process.
A summary of the seepage analysis results is presented in Figure 5 wherein the simulated
liquid heads on the liner during tailings dewatering were plotted. The corresponding
maximum liquid head on the liner at select time periods is presented in Table 4. The
results indicate that on the average it would take approximately 5 years to dewater the
tailings such that the maximum liquid head on the liner has dropped to less than one foot.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx Page4 of6
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Furthermore, the total liquid flux from the slime drains that were simulated in SEEP/W
were used to estimate the total drainage collected from each cell and to verify that the
header pipes can adequately handle the drained liquid to the sump.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A representative cross section of the cells with the proposed slime drain system was
modeled using the FE computer program SEEP/W to evaluate its capability to dewater
the tailings within a reasonable time. The proposed slime drain system consisted of a
series of 12-inch wide strip geocomposites on top of the geomembrane liner system
within the cells. The strip geocomposites were placed on a 40-ft spacing and overlain by
18-inch wide, 3-inch thick sand bags. The sand bag consisted of sand with a minimum
saturated hydraulic conductivity of lx10-4 emfs wrapped in a woven geotextile. The strip
geocomposites were connected to 4-inch diameter PVC header pipes to convey liquid to
the sump.
The results of the seepage analysis demonstrated that the proposed slime drain system
would be able to dewater the tailings within a reasonable time; approximately 5 years for
the maximum liquid head on the liner to drop to less than one foot.
6. REFERENCES
Fredlund, D. G., Xing, A., and Huang, S. 1994. "Predicting the Permeability Function for
Unsaturated Soils Using the Soil-water Characteristic Curve", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 31(4): 533-546.
GEO-SLOPE, 2018. "Seepage Modeling with SEEP/W -An Engineering Methodology",
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., July 2012 Edition.
Kovacs, G. 1981. "Seepage Hydraulics", Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
MWH, 2015. "Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc., White Mesa Mill, Tailings Data
Analysis Report", MWH Americas, Inc., April 2015.
MWH, 2016. "Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc., White Mesa Mill, Updated Tailings
Cover Design Report-Appendix C", MWH Americas, Inc., April 2016.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx Page5 of6
TABLES
Table 1 -Estimated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Tailings
Table 2 -Estimated Liquid Limit of Tailings
Table 3 -Material Hydraulic Properties
Table 4-Summary of Seepage Analysis Results
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Proposed Slime Drain System
Figure 2 -Model Geometry and Finite Element Mesh
Figure 3 -Particle Size Distribution Curves of Tailings
Geosyntec f.>
consultants
Figure 4 -Water Retention Curves and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity Functions
Figure 5 -Simulated Liquid Heads on the Liner During Tailings Dewatering
APPENDICES
Appendix A-Seepage Analysis Results
Appendix B -Excerpts from MWH [2015] and MWH [2016]
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx Page 6 of 6
Geosyntec 0
consultants
TABLES
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Table 1. Estimated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Tailings
Tailings Percentage of Horizontal Hydraulic Vertical Hydraulic
Type Material Conductivity (emfs) Conductivity (emfs)
Sand (I) 10% 4.60E-05 3.lOE-05
Sand-Slime (I) 65% 6.40E-06 9.00E-07
Slime (1) 25% 6.60E-06 1.30E-06
Weighted Average 1.04E-05 4.0lE-06
Note:
(1) Data obtained from the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report [MWH, 2015]. Excerpts from
the report are included in Appendix B.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FlNAL.docx
Table 2. Estimated Liquid Limit of Tailings
Tailings Percentage of Liquid Limit
Type Material (%)
Sand CI) 10% 0
Sand-Slime C2) 65% 34
Slime C2) 25% 41
Weighted Average 32
Notes:
(1) Not tested; Assumes nonplastic with zero liquid limit.
(2) Data obtained from the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report
[MWH, 2015]. Excerpts from the report are included in
Appendix B.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
GeosyntecD
consultants
GeosyntecD
consultants
Table 3. Material Hydraulic Properties
Horizontal Hydraulic Anisotropy (Vertical to Material Material Horizontal Hydraulic Water Retention
Conductivity, kx ( cm/s) Conductivity Ratio, ky/kx) Model Curve (Z)
Tailings l.04E-05 0.39 Saturated/ Estimated Using Built-in
Unsaturated Pedotransfer Function
Sand (I) l.OOE-04 1.0 Saturated/ Sample Function,
Unsaturated Sand
Notes:
( 1) Assumed material for the sand bag.
(2) The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function was estimated from the water retention curve using the built-in
estimating function in SEEP/W utilizing geotechnical index properties from MWH [2015] and MWH [2016].
Excerpts from the reports are included in Appendix B.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
Geosyntec e>
consultants
Table 4. Summary of Seepage Analysis Results
Time Maximum Liquid Head
(Years) on the Liner
(ft)
0 (Initial Conditions) 34
1 6.4
2 3.9
3 2.4
4 1.5
5 0.9
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
Geosyntec '>
consultants
FIGURES
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
Geo syn.tee t>
consultants
Ci. Ci.
i----------'\ 40' ---------------.-!
~ .. 1"
18"
3"
STRIP
GEOCOMPOSITE
Figure 1. Proposed Slime Drain System
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
SANDBAG
WOVEN
GEO TEXTILE
45
40
35. -:t!ii n T
t++ ~~
25 I C:
I I T-r-1-·5-··1
0 20
'P l I I I I I :;:::; I m > 1l Q)
w
I I 1 1 I 10
±o ,1 , , , ,utt-t~ 5 I-
i HH 11 I 0
--5
-10
-25 -20 -15 -10
Geo syn.tee 1>
consultants
Initial Water Level at El. 34 ft
---
_l_ ___ _
ll I I
1 I ' I I I
n n T O l'T il n T T nT
I
It Ii
1 I I I I I i'f ·
I I I I I I I I I / I I i Ll LJ I I I
I
j__LJ_Li_LJ_j_JJ
J_l__l_Li_l ! 1 l
l i i,.
II I II I I I + I I I I ·1 I -:c-\....!..111.
j_J_j ! I ' ! ! _!
, 1 1TIJ 11rr11, 11 r· 11au•u~11t:1111 -'.L.!..T,TT1n L _l_l I
+-l-++t-ti-H+·H'-l-+-Ll..!.-.1-c....ll-'.. -l 1 · 4 1 "i 1 1 1 ; '/ 1 1 , T-. '.\J')_ \ I 1,r..r.. __ -CTL-1·: 1 I I I i 11 111 1 ~1,
H -++-1-++W,LL -;;r\ ..... \ ... 1 , t \ • \ .~ 1 1 r 1
1
. .,--;T t-i>+.1-...i.....Lfi,~· \ \ I I ~0-'~· .. .;;:~-(' I I ! I 1-1-L .
1 -~.:i-:,~\-\}.-, I -');,:_.,,:'.~ ~.~~·--(•,' I I ' '
'
-.--'I' r / 1 -1 , r-.-( ~ ' I I 1 i
1 -.. -r-I / l-f-:-rf4..I+,~ X.J.. ' j I" ll ,-+t-,~ I .,q~,~-~' I i I I I I'
. I ~!>{~ ~rt•=.~ 1 I I I I I ;HJ , t 1 ', /l ' 1 °\J~I I I I ', I I I r
:,i+T'i"-t-T·/\ Y, ~:;n--+-4 . ''i--~ .' I : ! -~ •...-\·'f-L:tttii'--. .. -'~\ ·, I • I ',.J......J-+-+-._ .......-, 1:i-µ I l ! 1 I I , .' 11 +-l+j....,....-,
'ill I • : .,~ ·ti:-\.1:r-, i:::iil::
~in...H-t-H-A
ur~_ 44--14-I ' iTf~-k. rr:H ' 11 ,± J. ii l. ,l -"-r= ,. i-~
\tt
-A=
12-in Slimes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-tn Sand Bags
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance
Figure 2. Model Geometry and Finite Element Mesh
Zero Row
65
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
!i: 2 ~ >-0:,
:5 !
~ ij
Bi 0.
,,. S" 4-:r r ,. l,lf" 0.5" 3,T'
SIEVESlZE .. ••• 11211
Geosyntec t>
consultants
HYOROIETBO
a.110 teO •IQQ .,..
~ 0
80 -"?NZ 112.5'·13.51 10
-'N/2 (11M8.S'} --
--'ZNl (7-7..8") . --'-·•~-----·
SO -'ZN'J (9'-9,8') 20
"4-2'1/4.C 14'-4,81 ---
-2W4-¢ 110'-1D.n
~ ~
-2W&S(21 ('15.3'·1S.8')
--2W6-S(3)('1s-1s.s-i t I so •
-.-J.4N (7.3'·7.8')
~ ~
-3-6N(l4.5'-15,S'} so
-ol----H-..--+--l--+-----1
. ~-. :::: -~.:·1 ;.
' I , -::-j-" : '.
' -
20
'"' ' 10 ---• .. ·:..;,.!
1• •
.
1
!i: I lii
i i
!i ij
Bi 0.
010 J j_[ lJjli j_ J_ l _l
I• h· I l I ~ 11 1 1 , c •:r=r-· -.-~-!---,, •====i-------,1-i--1 ~ .. , 1 ,oo
UIOO 100 ID 1 0, 1 0.01 0.001
PARTIClE SIZE (UII)
eot.UJERS COBBLES <iff?M4. <4!ME I i!fE l@Bsei ~ !i'!G!!;!! !:a SLT I ClAY I
Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution Curves of Tailings (adapted from [MWH, 2015])
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
i ~ C 0 ·.;
C a, E :§.
"E J! C
8
!
" ii E :, ~
0 ,.v Ill 11
. ,, 0
0 ~
H,1
~ ·-0.
0 .
0 11111
0.1
Geosyntec t>
consultants
II 111111 11m Ill Ill I II cl 1111
Ill I
II I
1.0e-
1.0e-
" :ll £ 1.0e-
>, 1.0e-=s ~ 1.0e-1 :, ..,
C
1"' \ ~ 8
.2
:i
l I\ ~ ..,
>, :i::
~ r.... ~· :I ~ (
s C 0 N ·c:
\ I ~~I '~
I 11 II f-_._M I 11,11
0 :i::
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Soil Suction (psf) Soil Suction (psf)
Figure 4. Water Retention Curves and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity Functions
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
7
I ::-----. .
-I • -"' -. -~ sr '\ ID \ I \
ID
I... 4 :l Cl)
Cl) "tL.,,_ 1
ID -..."
I... 3 l " • a.. " \
Q) ""~ \
+-' :.-• ca 2 ---· ·~ ~ s: --· . "~ .
1 ............. .,.,,_
0
-20 -10 0
I I
1,
.
' .
i
a ,,
, ,,•
"
' I
C
~""
~ ,.
~ •'
-·
..• ,.,--"
~~ .... .. ... ··. . ·~. . \
'!'::-... ., •. ·.it,.1 -:,,, ·n,
·,., '• ~
' I .... '. . . . ........ \ ' ... ...,.. ' \
.,~,.._ ... '1,-...... _'f~
···~-....
. ,. .... ,.. . ____ ........ ---... .... v, t •• -· --· .......................... '/,~
· .. ·,,
Geosyntec C>
consultants
7 ········
l
f
/ ~ , •
'
I I
'tot CJt•·-<i
,,1_f ... 'P""1.;;
! . ~ .... •·-··-·
•·· .•'
1' : ~-·"' .J ., 1.1,· ,,. ... .,~
r' . --------·· •••• • (' . ········ .. ·~···
1 yrs
2 yrs
3 yrs
4 yrs
5 yrs
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
Figure 5. Simulated Liquid Heads on the Liner During Tailings Dewatering
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
Appendix A
Seepage Analysis Results
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
Geosyntec l>
consultants
Geo syn.tee C>
consultants
AppendixB
Excerpts from MWH [2015] and MWH [2016]
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
Geosyntece>
consultants
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL.docx
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Client: EF Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA-SB ------
Title of Computations
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
(originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
No.
Title
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Signature
Date
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121211.d.calc.docx
By Checked by
SC0634
11 I 2.0/q_
Date
ll(l8} )2.
Date
Date
Approval
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page I of 16
Written by: R. Fl:)'.nn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: l'Ljl~},-v
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
CALCULATION OF ACTION LEAKAGE RATE THROUGH THE LEAKAGE
DETECTION SYSTEM UNDERLYING A GEO MEMBRANE LINER.
OBJECTIVE
In accordance with Part 254.302 of the USEPA Code of Federal Regulations, determine
the action leakage rate (ALR) that a leak detection system (LDS) can remove, and not
allow the maximum fluid head on the bottom liner to exceed 1 foot. The ALR shall be
given as an average daily flow rate in gallons per day per acre for the sumps associated
with the primary and secondary LDS. The calculation shall include a margin of safety
sufficient to allow for design uncertainties, operational changes, and material
characteristics.
On the cel1 floors, the triple liner systems for Cells 5A and SB will be comprised of the
following from top to bottom (Attachment A):
• Primary Liner: 60-mil smooth high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane;
• 300-mil HDPE geonet;
• Secondary Liner: 60-mil HDPE geomembrane; and
• Te1iiary Liner: 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner™ geomembrane with 130-mil
asperities.
On the cel1 slopes, the triple liner systems for Cells SA and SB will be comp1ised of the
following from top to bottom (Attachment A):
• Primary Liner: 60-mil smooth high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane;
• Secondary Liner: 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner™ geomembrane with 130-mil
asperities; and
• Tertiary Liner: 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner™ geomembrane with 130-mil
asperities.
Cells SA and SB will have primary and secondary LDSs with surface areas of
approximately 42 acres. On the cell floor, the primary LDS will consist of a 300-mil
geonet above a 60-mil HDPE geomembrane while the secondary LDS will consist of a
Drain Liner™ geomembrane. Both systems wil1 include collection trenches that contain
SC0634.ALRSA-B.20121219.F .calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 2 of 16
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1i/ 1~,,z_,
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposnl No.: No.:
4-inch diameter perforated PVC pipe, drainage aggregate, and a cushion geotextile
(Attachment A). Pipes are spaced at the mid-points of the cells in the north-south and
east-west directions, as well as the toes of the 2H: 1 V side slopes along the lowest
portions of the cell floor. There is one sump associated with each LDS. On the slopes,
the primary and secondary LDSs will consist of 130-mil Drain Liner™ geomembrane.
In order to evaluate flow through the LDS with geonet and Drain Liner™ deployed in
any direction, the flow will be evaluated for the conservatively lowest possible drainage
gradient which is the north-south direction. The drainage gradient is reduced in this
scenario from 1.75% to 1.1 % in Cell 5A and from 1.75% to 1.2% in Cell 5B. This ALR
calculation evaluates the "worst-case scenario" of drainage assuming 1.1 % slope in Cell
5A along a distance of 563 ft (Attachment B).
In addition, Drain Liner™ panels have smooth sides for seaming, while the ends of each
panel will have the studs removed to allow seaming. As a result, flow is inhibited at the
sides and ends of deployed panels. A 200-mil thick piece of geonet will be installed
above the smooth seam at the butt-ends of the panels to allow liquid to drain along the
length of each panel (machine direction) to the LDS collection trench. On the side
seams, it is assumed no liquid will pass as there are no "studs" on the surface of the
Drain Liner™ and the overlying geomembrane will immediately contact the underlying
seam area thereby inhibiting flow (see Attachment A).
The method outlined by Giroud, et al. (1997) will be employed to calculate the ALR
and confirm the maximum expected head for each collection layer (Attachment C).
PRIMARY LDS ANALYSIS
Liquid flow through defect in primary geomembrane
Liquid migration through a liner occurs essentially through defects in the geomembrane.
According to Giraud, et al. (1997) (see Attachment C, 3/6) the rate of liquid migration
through a defect in the geomembrane is given by the following:
Q = (2/3)d1 ghpl"im
where:
Q = flow rate through one geomembrane defect, m3/s
d = defect diameter, m
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9. 81 m/sec2
hprim = head of liquid on top of primary liner, m
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219 .F .calc.docx
Equation (1)
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 3 of 16
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634
Proposal No.:
Task
No.:
According to the EPA, common practice is to assume that the diameter of a leak in the
geomembrane is equal to the thickness of the geomembrane (i.e. 60 mil, 0.0015 m).
Cell Bottom
Based on the proposed grading for Cells 5A (Attachment B) and the operational
constraint of maintaining 3 feet of freeboard within the cells, the height of the liquid on
primary geomembrane along the critical flow path is 30 feet (9.1 m). Placing the above
values into Equation 1 results in the following maximum flow rate per defect:
Q = (~) (0.0015m)2 Jc9.81 ~)(9.lm)
Q = 1.42 x 10-5 m3/sec
= 1.23 m3/day
= 322 gal/day
Side Slopes
Based on the proposed grading for Cells 5A and 58 (Attachment B) and the operational
constraint of maintaining 3 feet of freeboard within the cells, the height of the liquid on
primary geomembrane along the side slope critical flow path is 1 foot (0.3048 m).
Placing the above values into Equation 1 results in the following maximum flow rate
per defect:
Q = (~) (0.001Sm)2 J (9.81 ~)(0.3048m)
Q = 2.59xto·6 m3/sec
= 0.22 m3/day
= 59.2 gal/day
Maximum flow rate on Secondary Geomembrane, Cell Bottom
According to Giroud, et al. (1997) (see Attachment C, p. 2/6) the maximum flow rate
within the leak detection layer geonet is given by the following:
Equation (2)
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec '>
consultants
Page 4 of 16
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: I z_j 1 ~\1,z.
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Pro osal No.: No.:
Where:
Qtu11 = maximum flow rate within the geonet to be determined, m3 !sec
k = hydraulic conductivity of geonet; see below, m/sec
tLcL = thickness of leak detection layer; 300 mil, 0.0076 m
Hydraulic conductivity of Cell Bottom Geonet, k
Attachment D shows a permeability curve for a 300 mil thick geonet with an HDPE
geomembrane with a normal load of 10,000 psf. Based on the site grading (Attachment
B), a maximum thickness of waste material (tailings/slimes) will result in the following
normal stresses in Cells 5A and 5B:
Cell SA Cell 5B
Total Height of Material: Total Height of Material:
41 ft of tailings + 9 ft of cover 43 ft of tailings + 9 ft of cover
Normal Stress: Normal Stress:
50 ft X 125 lb/ft* = 6,250 pounds per 52 ft X 125 lb/ft* = 6,500 pounds per
square foot (pst) square foot (pst)
*Assumed
Normal stresses of approximately 6,250 psf and 6,500 psf will be exerted on the
geosynthetics in Cells 5A and 5B, respectively. The loading to be exerted on the
deployed geonet is less than the 10,000 psf normal load during transmissivity testing;
therefore, utilizing the results of transmissivity data is conservative for this loading
condition.
Graphing the permeability data for the 300 mil geonet under a nonnal stress of
approximately 10,000 psf (Attachment D), results in the following equation of the line:
k = 0.0854t0.4°6 Equation (3)
This equation accounts for intrusion (RF1N), creep (RFCR), chemical clogging (RFcc),
and biological clogging (RF8c), Koerner (Attachment E, 3/3) suggests the following
partial factor of safety values for leak detection systems:
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219. F .calc .dm:x
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page S of 16
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634
Proposal No.:
Task
No.:
RFrN 1.5 to 2.0
1.4 to 2.0
1.5 to 2.0
1.5 to 2.0
use 1.0 (no geotextiles on either side to intrude, test data
accounts for geomembrane intrusion)
use 1.2 (low normal stress)
use 2.0 (very low pH)
use 1.0 (very low pH should preclude biological activity)
The hydraulic gradient is based on the longest, critical drainage path (563 feet), slope of
the geonet (1.1 %), and height ofliquid above the liner system at the deepest point along
the flow path (5,585-5,555 = 30 feet, which accounts for the 3 foot freeboard,
Attachment B). Based on this information, the hydraulic gradient can be estimated as
follows:
i = (30 ft + 563 ft X 0.011) / 563 ft = 0.064
Placing the estimated hydraulic gradient of 0.064 into Equation 3 results in a hydraulic
conductivity of 0.26 m/sec.
Placing the geonet hydraulic conductivity and thickness into Equation 2 results in the
following:
Quner = (0.26 m/sec) x (0.0076 m)2 = 1.5 x 10-s m3/sec > 1.42 x 10-s m3/sec
The flow through the geonet is greater than the flow through the defect; therefore, the
geonet is appropriate as a leak detection layer on the cell bottom.
Maximum flow rate on Secondary Geomembrane, Side Slopes
According to Giroud, et al. (1997) (see Attachment C, p. 2/6) the maximum flow rate
within the side slope leak detection layer Drain Liner™ is given by the following:
Where:
Equation (2)
Qru11 = maximum flow rate within the Drain Liner,.M to be determined, m3/sec
k = hydraulic conductivity of Drain Liner™; see below, ml sec
tLcL = thickness of leak detection layer; 130 mil, 0. 0033 m
SC0634.ALRSA-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec •>
consultants
Page 6 of 16
Written by: R. Fl2:nn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1dfhl12.-
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
Hydraulic conductivity of Side Slope Drain Liner™, k
Attachment F shows a hydraulic conductivity curve for a 130 mil thick Drain Liner™
geomembrane with an HDPE geomembrane under a normal load of 15,000 psf.
As calculated previously, normal stresses of 6,250 psf and 6,500 psf will be exerted on
the Drain Liner™ geomembrane in Cells 5A and 5B, respectively; therefore, utilizing
the hydraulic conductivity of the Drain Liner™ under a nonnal load of 15,000 psf is
conservative.
Graphing the penneability data for the 130 mil thick Drain Liner™ under a normal
stress of approximately 15,000 psf (Attachment F), results in the following equation of
the line:
k = 0.2388i-0.4l) Equation (3)
This equation accounts for intrusion (RF1N), creep (RFCR), chemical clogging (RFcc),
and biological clogging (RF 8c), Koerner (Attachment E) suggests the following partial
factor of safety values for leak detection systems:
RF1N 1.5 to 2.0
RFcR 1.4 to 2.0
RFcc 1.5 to 2.0
RFsc 1.5 to 2.0
use 1.0 (no geotextiles on either side to intrude, test data
accounts for geomembrane intrusion)
use 1.2 (low normal stress)
use 2.0 (very low pH)
use 1.0 (very low pH should preclude biological activity)
The hydraulic gradient is based on the longest, critical drainage path (92 feet), slope of
the Drain Liner™ (50%), and height of liquid above the liner system at the point
furthest from the collection pipe, 1 ft (Attachment B). Based on this information, the
hydraulic gradient can be estimated as follows:
i = (1 ft+ 92 ft X 0.50) / 92 ft= 0.511
Placing the estimated hydraulic gradient of 0.511 into Equation 3 results in a hydraulic
conductivity of 0.32m/sec.
SC0634.ALRSA-B.20121219.F.calc.doc1\
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 7 of 16
Written by: R.Fl}'.nn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1l! 1B\1·1--
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
Placing the Drain Liner™ hydraulic conductivity and thickness into Equation 2 results
in the following:
Quner = (0.32 m/sec) X (0.0033 m)2 = 3.4 X 10"6 m3/seC > 2.59x10"6 m3/sec
The flow through the Drain Liner™ is greater than the flow through the defect;
therefore, the Drain Liner™ is appropriate as a leak detection layer on the side slopes.
Action Leakage Rate (ALR)
The number of defects in a geomembrane is given by Giraud, et al (Attachment C, 4/6),
as the following:
Equation (4)
where:
N = number of defects
F = frequency of defects (per m2 of geomembrane)
ALcL = area of leakage collection layer; 42 acres, 169, 970 m2
Using an assumed F = 1/2,500 m2 (Attachment A, 4/6), the number of defects-assumed
in the primary geomembrane is as follows:
N= 1 defect x (169,9701n 2 ) -_ 68 ( d d h 1 b ) roun e up to nearest w o e num er
2,500 m2
ALR = (Q)(N)/acre
(1.23m 3 /day)( 68)
42 acres
= 1.99 m3/day/acre
= 526 gal/day/acre
Q = flow through defect on the cell bottom, 1.23 m3 /day, conservatively high for
entire cell since side slopes defects flows are lower.
Both Cells 5A and 5B are the same size, 42 acres; therefore, the ALR of 526
gal/day/acre is valid for both cells.
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec•>
consultants
Page 8 of 16
Written by: R. Flpn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1t.\~1t-
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
Maximum flow rate to sump
Based on the area of the liner systems, the following maximum flow rate to the sump is
anticipated:
Qsump = (526 gal/day/acre) (42 acres) = 22,100 gal/day = 15.3 gpm
A sump pump capable of a minimum flow rate of 20 gallons per minute at the head
conditions present (approximately 46 vertical feet plus piping losses [Cell SB
conditions, conservative for Cell SA], Attachment B) will be utilized to remove liquids
from the LDS.
Time of travel
According to Giroud, et al. (1997) ( see Attachment C, 6/6) the travel time for the liquid
to reach the LDS piping system from the defect in the primary geomembrane is given
by the following:
tiravel = (nx) / (k sin P cos P)
The time of travel is evaluated for the worst-case scenario, when the Cell 5A liner
system is deployed in north-south orientation and assuming the longest drainage path to
the sump (1050 ft, 320m); actual deployment direction will be detennined by the
Contractor.
ttravei = (nx) 1 (k sin p cos P)
where:
t ,ra,•et = time for liquid to travel from
defect in primary geomembrane to
the LDS piping; to be determined,
sec
n = porosity of geonet, 0.8
x = maximum distance from defect
in primary geomembrane to LDS
piping; 1050 ft, 320 m
k = hydraulic conductivity of the
geonet; 0. 26 m/sec from above
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 9 of 16
Written by: R.Fl:ynn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1z\1~12.
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634
Proposal No.:
= slope of floor; 1.1 %, 0.011
radians
t1ravel = (0.80) (320m) I (0.26 rn/sec) (sin
0.011) (cos 0.011)
= 89,521 sec
= 24.9 hours
Task
No.:
Therefore, the leak detection system geonet will allow for timely detection ofliquids.
Head Above Secondary Liner, Cell Bottom (h):
Knowing the maximum potential flow rate through a specific defect in the primary
geomembrane, and assuming a worst case condition where the liner defect is located at
the higher end of the leakage collection layer slope, liquid head build-up on the
secondary geomernbrane is calculated using the following equation from Giroud, et al.
(1997) (see Attachment A, 5/6):
NQ
tavg,vorst = -
kiB
where:
( avg wo,·st
N
Q
k
i
B
Equation (6)
= average thickness of liquid above secondary (bottom)
geomembrane under worst case scenario; to be determined, m
= total number of defects in primary geomernbrane; 68 = flow rate through one defect in primary geomembrane;
1.42 x 10·5 m3/sec
= hydraulic conductivity of geonet; 0. 26 ml sec from above
= hydraulic gradient in leakage collection layer; 0. 064 from above = width of leakage collection layer; 563 feet, 172 m (Attachment B)
Placing the estimated geonet hydraulic conductivity, average thickness of liquid in the
LDS, and the thickness of the leak detection layer geonet into Equation 6 results in the
following:
(68)(1.42xl0-s)
tm,gll'ors, = (2.6x10-1 rn / sec)(0.064)(172m) tavgworsl = 0. 00034 m = 0. 34 mm
SC0634.ALRSA-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 10 of 16
Written by: R. Fll'.on Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,i\1~~1.,.
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
The head on the secondary does not exceed 0.34 mm (13.4 mil), much less than the 300
mil geonet thickness.
Head Above Secondary Liner, Side Slope Drain Liner™ (h):
The head above the liner is evaluated to determine if the side slope liner system is
flowing full. In this evaluation, the 22 ft wide Drain Liner™ strip is evaluated for Cell
5A. This results in a drainage area of 2,992 sf (assuming a panel length equivalent to the
slope length, 136 ft, and a panel width of 22 ft). Using the same defect evaluation
identified for the ALR calculation, this would result in no more than 1 defects per strip.
Knowing the maximum potential flow rate through a specific defect in the primary
geomembrane, and assuming a worst case condition where the 1 primary liner defect is
located at the higher end of the leakage collection layer slope, liquid head build-up on
the secondary geomembrane is calculated using the following equation from Giraud,
et al. (1997) (see Attachment C, 5/6):
NQ
fnvf!worsl = --
0 kiB
where:
f a\'8 ll'O/'S(
N
Q
k
l
B
Equation (6)
= average thickness of liquid above secondary (bottom)
geomembrane under worst case scenario; to be determined, m = total number of defects in primary geomembrane; 1
= flow rate through one defect in primary geomembrane;
2.59 x 10'6 m3 !sec
= hydraulic conductivity of primary Drain Liner™ geomembrane;
0. 32mlsec from above
= hydraulic gradient in leakage collection layer; 0.511 from above
= width of leakage collection layer; 22 feet, 6. 7 m (Attachment A)
Placing the estimated Drain Liner™ hydraulic conductivity, average thickness of liquid
in the LDS, and the thickness of the leak detection layer Drain Liner™ into Equation 6
results in the following:
(1)(2.59xJ o-") t =~~~~~~~-~~
0"gworsi (0.32m I sec)(0.511)(6.7m) tavgworst = 2.36xl0-6 m = 0.0024 mm
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20l21219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 11 of 16
Written by: R. Fl;rnn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1il 19\11.-
Client: EF Project: Cells SA& SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
The head on the secondary liner does not exceed 0.0024 mm (0.09 mil), much less than
the 130-mil Drain Liner™ asperity height; therefore, the assumptfon that the drainage
collection layer is not flowing full is valid.
SECONDARY LDS ANALYSIS
Liquid flow through defect in secondary geomembrane
Using Equation 1, defined previously, the rate of liquid migration through a defect in
the secondary geomembrane is given by the following:
Q = (2 / 3)d2 ~ghprim
where:
Q = flow rate through one geomembrane defect, m3 /s
d = defect diameter, m
g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 m/sec2
hprim = head of liquid on top of primary liner, m
Equation (1)
Based on the thickness of the primary leak detection, 300-mil, the head on the
secondary liner will not be greater than 300-mil. Because this condition is the same for
both Cells bottoms and conservative for cell side slopes, this evaluation is only
performed once. Placing this value into Equation 1 results in the following maximum
flow rate per defect:
Q = (~) (0.0015m)2 j(9.81 ~)(7.6 X 1Q-3m)
Q = 4.10 x 10-7 m3/sec
= 3.5x10-2 m3/day
= 9 .25 gal/day
Maximum flow rate on Drain Liner™
According to Giroud, et al. (1997) (see Attachment C, p. 2/6) the maximum flow rate
within the leak detection layer Drain Liner™ is given by the following:
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 12 of 16
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,ti '8\12.-
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
Equation (2)
Where:
Qruu = maximum flow rate within the Drain Liner™; to be determined, m3 !sec
k = hydraulic conductivity of Drain Liner™; see below, m!sec
tLcL = thickness of leak detection layer; 130 mil, 0. 0033 m
Hydraulic conductivity of Drain Liner™, k
The hydraulic conductivity of the Drain Liner™ was evaluated under a normal load of
15,000 psf for the primary side slope LDS. The following equation was identified for
determining the hydraulic conductivity based on the gradient with appropriate factors of
safety.
k = 0.2388t0·413 Equation (3)
Similar to the primary leak detection system analysis, the hydraulic gradient is based on
the longest, critical drainage path (563 feet), slope of the geonet (1.1 %), and height of ·
liquid above the liner system at the deepest point along the flow path based on the
geonet thickness, 300 mil (Attachment B). Based on this information, the hydraulic
gradient can be estimated as follows:
i = (0.025 ft + 563 ft X 0.011) / 563 ft = 0.011
Placing the estimated hydraulic gradient of 0.011 into Equation 3 results in a hydraulic
conductivity of 1.54 m/sec.
Placing the Drain Liner™ hydraulic conductivity and thickness into Equation 2 results
in the following:
Qllner = (1.54 m/sec) X (0.0033 m)2 = 1.68 X 10-s m3/sec
Action Leakage Rate (ALR)
The number of defects in a geomembrane is given by Giroud, et al (Attachment C), as
the following:
Equation ( 4)
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 13 of 16
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,2-11~12
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
where:
N = number of defects
F = frequency of defects (per m2 of geomembrane)
ALcL = area of leakage collection layer; 42 acres, 169,970 m2
Using an assumed F = 1/2,500 m2 (Attachment C, 4/6), the number of defects assumed
in the primary geomembrane is as follows:
1 defect
----2 x (169,970m2 ) = 68 (rounded up to nearest whole number)
2,500 m N=
ALR = (Q)(N)/acre
(3.5 X 10-2)(68)
42 -
m3
0.057 dciy
acre
= 15.1 gal/day/acre
Both Cells SA and 5B are the same size, 42 acres; therefore, the ALR of 15.1
gal/day/acre is valid for both cells.
Maximum flow rate to sump
Based on the area of the liner systems, the following maximum flow rate to the sump is
anticipated:
Qsump = (15.1 gal/day/acre) (42 acres) = 634 gal/day = 0.44 gpm
A sump pump capable of a minimum flow rate of 1 gallon per minute at the head
conditions present (approximately 46 vertical feet plus piping losses [Cell 58
conditions, conservative for Cell 5A], Attachment B) will be utilized to remove liquids
from the LDS.
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219.F.calc.clocx
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 14 of 16
Written by: R. fl;tnn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: \ct\~n ..
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
Time of travel
According to Giraud, et al. (1997) (see Attachment C, 6/6) the travel time for the liquid
to reach the LDS piping system from the defect in the secondary geomembrane is given
by the following:
tiravel = (nx) I (k sin ~ cos P)
ttravel = (0.97) (320 m) I (1.54 m/sec) (sin 0.63) (cos 0.63)
= 18,332 sec
= 5.09 hours
where:
t ,ravel = time for liquid to travel from defect in primary geomembrane to the LDS
piping; to be determined, sec
n = porosity of Drain LinerTM, 97 % (Attachment G)
x = distance from defect in secondary geomembrane to LDS piping; 1050ft, 320
m (Assumed worst-case if panels are oriented NE to SW)
k = hydraulic conductivity of the geonet; 1.54 mlsec from above
P = slope of floor; 1.1 %, 0.63 degrees, 0.011 radians
Therefore, the leak detection system Drain Liner™ will allow for timely -detection of
liquids.
Head Above Tertiary Liner, (h):
Knowing the maximum potential flow rate through a specific defect in the primary
geomembrane, and assuming a worst case condition where the 68 tertiary liner defects
are located at the higher end of the leakage collection layer slope, liquid head build-up
on the secondary geomembrane is calculated using the following equation from Giroud,
et al. (1997) (see Attachment C, 5/6):
NQ
lmrnworst == --~ kiB
where:
t ovg 111orsf
N
Equation (6)
= average thickness of liquid above secondary (bottom)
geomembrane under worst case scenario; to be determined, m
= total number of defects in primary geomembrane; 68
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 15 of 16
Written by: R.Fll".nn Date: 12/09/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: \2_,\1~}iz..,
Client: EF Project: Cells SA & SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
Q = flow rate through one defect in secondary geomembrane;
2. 7x 1(17 m3/sec
k = hydraulic conductivity of primary Drain Liner'l'l,1 geomembrane;
1.54 m!sec from above
i = hydraulic gradient in leakage collection layer; 0. 011 from above
B = width of leakage collection layer; 563 feet, 172 m (Attachment B)
Placing the estimated Drain Liner™ hydraulic conductivity, average thickness of liquid
in the LDS, and the thickness of the leak detection layer Drain Liner™ into Equation 6
results in the following:
(68)(4. lxl 0-1 ) t =~~-'---'--~~~'--~-
(/Vgworst (1.54m I sec)(O.OJ 1)(172111) tavgworst = 9.57x10-6 m = 0.0096 mm
The head on the secondary does not exceed 0.0096 mm (0.4 mil), much less than the
130-mil Drain Liner™ asperity height; therefore, the assumption that the drainage
collection layer is not flowing full is valid.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
• Using the method outlined by Giraud, et al. (1997), and an N = 68, the ALR was
calculated to be 526 gal/day/acre for the primary LDS system and 15.1
gal/day/acre for the secondary LDS.
• Liquids entering the LDS layers will take approximately one day or less to travel
from the leak to the LDS piping systems.
• Assuming worst case scenarios for the primary cell bottom, primary side slopes,
and secondary cell bottoms, the liquid head on the secondary and tertiary liners do
not exceed the thickness of the drainage collection layer.
• The Drain Liner™ and 300-mil Geonet provides sufficient flow rate to
accommodate the ALR.
REFERENCES
AGRU America, High Density Polyethylene Drain Liner™ Product Data, 2009 -2011
(Attachment F)
SC0634.ALR5A-B.20121219 .F.calc.docx
Geosyntec 0
consultants
PBgc 16 of 16
Written by: R, lll)'.hn
Client: EF
Date: .12/09/12 Reviewa:d by: G. Corcoran
Proj~C;it: Cells SA ~ SU Pl'oject/ SCD634
Propostil No.:
Dllte: t \ l!~ \rz.
Tilsk
No.:
Giroud, J.P., G1:oss, B.A., Bonaparte; R .• and M¢Kelvey, J.A. (1997)~ "Leachate Flow in
Leakage Collection Layers Due to Defects in Geomembrane Liners,"
Oeosynthelic lntemationat. Vol. 4, No. 3-4, pp. 215-292. (Attachment CJ
GSE, 2012. Drainage Design Manual. Available onlineat: www.gsew0Jld.c m
(Atta~hment DJ
Koerner, R. M., Designing with Geosynthetics, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
1998. (Attachm,ent E)
SC0634.~ArD,20'1.ll2l9.P.ealc,doi:.x
Attachment A-Liner System Details
T
6"
I 1·
I
IIO Mil. HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
PREPARED SUBGRAOE/
ENGlffEERED FILL
DETAIL
DETAIL
BASE LINER SYSTEM
DIIA.~
lilllA.~ GEae.-..,e
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM TRENCHES
!Ill MIL HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE -SMOOTH
IIOMILHOPE
GEOMEMBRANE -DRAINUNER
DETAIL
SIDE SLOPE LINER SYSTEM
' l '
i ' l s • a • ~ ~ ( .
{
~ i I ~~-~
i i.,.,,.. ~ I ~, .. '"' i II I'!" ~ , ...
CUI. SA LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM
ilUU; t" ~--
WAI[;~~ 4:5&13 I , ,•, _..::'·--~ ... .. ~t.,.lfflU,l;'f ·(). au "" ·-~-~--. w ;&( j ~"''
'!A':~:-_-·~..:...~ .. ..!.-'-~-
/,/ I • • ~ f
, 117
i
CELL 5A SPIYIE,S DRAIN SYSTEM ac,.i.,, .... PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
JUNE~011 EJCISTINr,C".ROUl«)l,lAJQRCOHIOUA:(10]
JUNE 70 11 EXl!HINO GROONO M:NOR CONTOIJR. ('2 J
EXJSTINGFENCF
-,a-PROPOSEOGRllr.tNGt.lAIORCONTOUR(IOI
PAOPr>SED C",RAOIN'G ~\INOl'C CONTOUR (2')
l'CliOPOM'tl(~L!it.llt
L!llltOl"t.aQJWSffl°"
.,nwrtN/'J~l~t.ll;ftCno,,tS"'ftru,v'ltll;
~°""'"'ft1JW,f'#!lr,,C
SL~ESOFVIINS~STB.ISTRIP~,MCOIA,llo~
~~SPIASHPAC@
NOTES
t ,:ar:,ll'K)•ft"Al\'111!~,..,IQIQCIINi.M(nrl:1'~
CCHl~~Yf'(llt4111,11t~c;oo.,c1u,,c.r ....... b,.11
Oof:S-111:lXVNIO"WAl~tliO/ OOO'ffVlL.alll,or.lQi~ ........
:, CONTRACTDl'ISll/llL!>EMFc.AlETOl'SOIL S'1N ~'IJAOCI(
IMIEfl/AI..S INTO s&P.•.IV1TE STOCKr'II.ES N STOCl<PLE A.<IEA "'!i
OnECTEO 8V TM!; C(INSTRIICTION W.MI\CE~ CONTAACTOR SIii¥. L NOT 6TOCKf'11.E OVER OELM:/\fF.ll ~&"Ol.OGIICAI. ~ITC!'> """-Cll)llft;l.140:0llilt!MU.llf"1!1lCIIW"l~MAHIW'IQI
J liTOCKPN E TO BF. CONSfRUCTED t,f SLOPES NOSTEEl'ERTH/\N ,itw ANDA MINIMUM Of?OFT rROM lllE CREST OF THE SLOr>E STOCICPli WITI IIN 100 FT OF CRES1 or SL.OPE SHALL NOT EiCCEED
:N>fl IHl~GHI
GeosyntecD
o:,multants
,cmRAN<:111:l&~&>lOO"D~nr,o:1 ~:t:;~~~~::
j
r
eF ,.,,.4-·~-=,-
PIPE LAYOUT PLAN AND DETAILS· CELL SA
ll•-W.VN>l~IP,IU'U ~,,.,.. __
-.-.-
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND SB
WHITE MESA Mill
BLANDING, UTAH
11101 lfV $CP153'1-QJA-049
.. ~.. en:
04A ,.___g_
A·\--\C"C.\'\1Y\(:n.\ ·<~ (, I :s
~ ! ~ ;
I ? I
i ~ !
! t
I ! < ! : I
j
i ~ • I k , IR
I
·-:,u.,r.1,1,Y
@
I';'\ '1:,1
o"t''
.\ ~
PLAN
CELL 56 LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM K.111..t r~XIO"
,.,
1/(/
v,,,i·~Q"l,l·~
\
\
CELL 58 SLIMES DRAIN SYSTEM
SCA1..E1"•10D"
\
\
\ Q~.;t,11, \
\ \
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
..._
LEGEND
JUN!--?01 I F>'.ISTl~.G GROIJNCJ I CELL SI\ GRADING MAJU11 CON IUUI-< (l(n
JUNE:m11 c.x1:;11r,c GROUND I CELL~ ... (.W.lllNG MINORCONIOUR (')
FXISOINGOIFHl-l0.0.0
F'ROPQSFD CR/IOlr..G ~AJOR CON IOUl'.110 I
--~~117~,i;;otfilJlllll'P"'I
~::l~llVi'f
-----~~IM'IU,fGl\n
---1'u":9i~~'III~
-·-· --11.ill.llllORl'IIN:OYl::ll':.MSIRIP<;:O~IPOSITE,V-!OS/\NLlllAGS
~SPLIISHr•.o.o@
NOTES
f-x1s:;1·1cs111:11:i\lUlll /l'IOf'HOiO~'RA\'MLTRO:.lOPOC.RAf'HI".
r,c1,10Ufff,FJ.OSFOUr:JNA::1J1<VLYCONO\JCTIDONJUNF)o:rn11 1111:; INI ORIMTl(lN '1/1','c; r"<:lVl,Jt[J Lill rir. RGY fUFI ~Rrsour.r:r.s me.
:I r:or. l'~ACTOl1 '.,flAI I :;Fc,RrG/1.T( 1 OP~OIL SOIi /ll~I) Ror:K fMTFRll'lfilNTCl~[P/1.RATr:SlOf.KPII F5k'I ~,TOCKl'ILI:Al:U:;1\/\S
l)al,.C,(UJ.M'!'>~r.r;f41illtliel!C""'Y"~C!(IIIT"-"rtf'(Jll""W1 ltM"ZTQl!'~l,(t.N(.atJ(U"ICN(l)~lllitU
•ND.'litlli«.t~c,J.e!l't~ rr1111.co1:111111-1:,~1Ullilll:.lll
GeDsyntecc,
ron.,ult:mt,
10~,1 """c,10BERNA~fJ<lRD ~UI~ .,, .. ,., s,,tJ D"£C0 CA ~7'~7
t
eF
PIPE LAYOUT PLAN ANO DETAILS -CELL 58
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
--... y~ ...... ---°" rc,,;t0:Uc11,,i,c,._r,,,r .... w .,_
.,,,-I 048 • _1L
f-l.·\··k~t V\r,, ,rn'.i \~ P 13)
Geosyntec f) Written by J~, .:JJ:,,.!c.l.,J:....i=_ __ Date: _ll.\_,_1_Z.1_1t._ Reviewed by:..,,..__;:· :,;:tx't..:.;':..;_(.=;_t,;.~;_;__r-...l __ Date: __ l_c_/ __
DD MM Y\' DD MM YY
Page __ of~
consultants
Client: ----'(;'F="----Project; c~s SA t I;.~ Project/Proposal No :$(. o kl 3 1,.1 Task No_ oz.
. . ··nae a. -i
! .! ..;. l--I -~ . IA.101?1"';\ 1" l .cl.~ . -I I, • ----f -l -I
I I I I l . I
11 . ·-s ~'-" C . Cn , !lo ~ ";J-' ,-I C ~ £ cti -' I") ~·' -1-0-,-.-1-1
. ~ =i cs ~ 1-:: l-S ,_ .JC I -~·
'-:--..
J ~
-Q Ir--11 Q () 3~ \ X> I ' r, • ! -I P--,_ ·-r--
·--r--t-11-
1-·--l-~-1-~-i-::-~:.p. . ...1_1=--=-r--t-1-r-,'-" -i~l--·1-i--l--+---t--·------_.__ -
1-,_ 1---1--1--1--t--t--1--;--~.~-,-
l-~--1--1--1--~-1--+-r-+--t--1i--t-1-'l--.-1-1-1-1--i-1-·1-+--r--1-·->----1f---~-i--l--+--
IA I,~~. -~1 1~~ --1~1-1-,~1-1---~~-,-·~~-~~
l--l---l-+--!--+--t1~ -c;1---js.lF=)---,.~ s -s s ~ i. c:. t-:-~ o'---li--11-1-.1--l---+--+-t-.. -·--ll-ii-i-1
' (~ fb \ 1'2' •
.
I
-,').0 '\t>
INTRODU IJ • By J.P. Giroud
[edge the support of GeoSyntec Consultants for the preparation of
nd express my gratitude to its Chief Executive Officer and Presi-
and its Principals, T.R. Sanglerat, J.F. Beech, R.C. Bachus, T.N.
R.J. Dunn, E. Kavazanjian and D.M. Hendron. I also want to say
of this issue would not have been possible without the contribution
r.D. King, from Tesoro Petroleum Company, and the others from
mts: K. Badu-Tweneboah (2 papers), R. Bonaparte, B.A. Gross, T.
Khire (3 papers), J.A. McKelvey (3 papers), N.S. Rad, T.R. Sang-
[1Il3D (3 papers). It is certainly very rewarding for me to work with
; caliber. Finally, I am grateful to S.L. Berdy who produced the ex-
K. Holcomb who ensured flawless word processing, with the help
T. Pierce for several of the papers. I also want to acknowledge the
: by the unknown soldiers of Geosynthetics International, the anon-
io reviewed the papers and provided so many valuable comments.
express my gratitude to T.S. Ingold. Editor, and RJ. Bathurst, Co-
~tics /nternatio11al for giving me the opportunity of grouping these
ame issue published as a Special Issue, and to K. Labinaz., Produc-
vnthetics International, who provided two rounds of editing, with
to ensure not only the correctness of each paper, but, also, the con-
:ial Issue.
J.PG.
~ ./
Technical Paper by J.P. Giroud, B.A. Gross, R. Bonaparte
and J.A. McKelvey
LEACHATE FLOW IN LEAKAGE
COLI.,ECTION LAYERS DUE TO
DEFECTS IN GEOMEMBRANE LINERS
ABSTRACT: This paper provides analytical and graphical solutions related to the flow of
leachate in a leakage collection layer due to defects in the overlying liner (i.e. the primary
liner of a double liner system). The defects are assumed to be small (e.g. holes in geomem-
brane liners). It is shown that leachate flows in a zone of the leakage collection layer (the
wetted zone) that is limited by a parabola. A simple relationship is established between the
rate of leachate migration through the defect and the maximum thickness of leachate in the
leakage collection layer; this relationship depends on the hydraulic conductivity (but not on
the slope) of the leakage collection layer. Equations are provided to calculate the average
head of leachate on top of the liner underlying the leakage collection layer (i.e. the secondary
liner of a double liner system), which is useful for calculating the rate of leachate migration
through that liner. Finally, the case of several leaks randomly distributed is considered, and
equations for the surface area of the wetted zone and the average head are given for this case.
Parametric analyses and design examples provide useful comparisons between the three
types of materials used in leakage collection layers; gravel, sand and geonets.
KEYWORDS: Geomembranc, Defect. Leachate migration, Leachate collection, Leakage,
Leakage collection, Liner system, Double liner, Geosynthetic leakage collection layer.
AUTHORS: 1-P. Giroud, Senior Principal, GeoSyntec Consultants, 621 N.W. 53rd Street,
Suite 650, Boca Raton, Florida 33487, USA, Telephone: [phone], Telefax:
1/561-995-0925, E-mail: [e-mail]; B.A. Gross, Senior Project Engineer,
GeoSyntcc Consultants, 1004 East 43rd Street, Austin, Texas 78751, USA, Telephone:
1/512-451-4003, Telefax: 1/512-451-9355, E-mail: [e-mail]; R. Bonaparte,
Principal, GeoSyntec Consultants, 1100 Lake Hearn Drive, N.E., Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia
30342, USA, Telephone: [phone], Telefax: 1/404-705-9400, E-mail:
[e-mail]; and J.A. McKclvey, Senior Project Engineer, GeoSyntec
Consultants, 2100 Main Street, Suite 150, Huntington Beach, California 9264S, USA,
Telephone: 1n14-969-0800, Telefax: 1/714-969-0820, E-mail: [e-mail].
PUBLICATION: Geosymhetics Intematio11al is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 345 Cedar St., Suite 800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1088, USA,
Telephone: [phone], Telefax: 1/612-222-8215. Geosynthetics Jruernational is
registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATES: Original manuscript received 1 March 1997 and accepted 19 April 1997.
Discussion open until 1 March 1998.
REFERENCE: Giraud, J.P., Gross, B.A., Bonaparte, R. and McKelvey, J.A., 1997,
"Leachate Flow in Leakage Collection Layers Due to Defects in Geomembrane Liners",
GeosyntlzeJics lnternation.al, Vol. 4, Nos. 3-4, pp. 215-292.
iOUD et al. • Le.. .e Flow in Leakage Collection Layers Due to Geomembrane Defects
t appears that, when the leakage collection layer ~ not full, there is an extremely sim-
relationship between the rate ofleachate migration through the primary liner defect,
and ~e. thickness of leachate in the leakage collection l~yer beneath the defect, t,, .
s interesting to note that this relationship does not depend on the size of the defect
the-primary liner or on the slope of the !¢age collection layer.
~ approximation that was made to·establisb Eq~ons 9 and 10 was to assume that
: downslope flow line fn:>m A (i.e. AB mrigure 4a) is parallel to the liner. This as-
nption is close to reality as discussed in Sectipn 2.2. However, the actual flow line
m A is below Line AB as the flow thic;kDess decreases in the downslope direction,
:liscussed at the end of Section 5.1.2. Therefore, t. should only be regarded as the flow
ckness at a pIIDfary liner defecL, and it is the maximum flow thickness.
iin!=e the simple relationship e>..-pressed by Equations 9 and 10 was demonstrated for
: c~ when the leakage collection layer is not full, the condition expressed by Equa-
n l must be met for Equations 9 and 10 to be valid. Combining Equations 1 and ! 0
,es the following equation, which is another way to express the condition that should
met to ensure that the leakage collection layer is not full:
t LCL ~ f LClfu/1 = N-(II)
1ere tLaJ,,11 is the mininwm lhiekness that a leakage collection layer with a hydraulic
nductivity k should have to contain, without being full at any location. the leachate
,w which results from a defect in the primary liner.
The following equation, derived from Equation 11, is another way to express the con-
ion that should be met to ensure that the leakage collection layer is not full:
Q :S Qfu/1 = k tza (!2~ r:4\
1ere Qfull is the maximum steady-state tale of.leachate migration through a <lcfccl in
~ primary liner that a leakage collection layer, with a thickness Ii.CL and a hydraulic
nductivity k, can accommodate without being fi,Ued with leachate.
ft is impertant to remember that the subsaiptfall corresponds to a minimum thi~kncss
the leakage oollection layer and to a maximum i31e of leacllate m:igratjcm (Which is
;o the mlJXU1ZW'fl flow rate in the .leakage collection layer). It is noteworthy tbat the
inimum thickness of the leakage collection layer, lll:Lr•n, and the maximom flow rale.
"11. which are required to ensure rbat the leakage collectien Jayer can contain, without
mg ~ the flow that results from a defect in the primary liner, do not depend on rhc
lpe of the Jeakage celledion layer.
Itis not impossible ta design a leakage collection layer with a thicknes.s tess than Lhe
tlue tu:i.1 .. 11 given by Equation 11, i.e. where the flow rate is greater I.ban Q1u1, defined
, Equation 12. In this case, the leakage collection layer is filled with Ieacimte in a ccr·
in area around the.defect Qf the primary liner (i.e, "the leachate collection layer is
JI"). This case is discussed in Section 3.2. -"' ~-
~j :...,..,
• -J
i t ! t \
i
GIROUD et al. e Leachate Flow in Leakage Collection l..ayf. ,e to Geomembri
3.2 Rate of Leachate Flow When the Leachate Collection Layer is Fl
If the thickness of the leakage collection layer is less than lLcLJun expressed
tion 11 ( or if the rate of leachate migration through a primary liner defect is gn
Q1uu expressed by Equation 12, which is equivalent), the leakage collectioi:
filled with leachate in a certain area around the defecL Following the appz
scribed in Section 2.2, it may then be assumed that the leachate phreatic sum
leakage collection layer is a truncated cone (Figure 5). The virtual apex of the 1
cone, A', is above the leakage collection layer (Le. above the primary liner,
the upper boundary of the leakage collection layer). The virtual leachate depth
the virtual leachate thickness, t,, , are related to the actual leachate head, h
0
,
Equation 4, and the virtual leachate thickness t0 is greater than the thickness o
ci1ate collection layer:
to> tLCL
The surface area of the vertical cross section of the flow in the leakage collect
(Figure 5) is expressed by:
S= D; _ (Do -DLCL)2 DI.CL (2D0 -DLCL)
tan fl tan fl tan /3
where DLCL is the depth of the leakage collection layer.
The depth is measured vertically whereas the thickness is measured perpenc
to the slope, hence, in accordance with Equation 3:
tLcL = DLcL cos/3
Using the demonstration presented in Section 2.2, i.e. combining Equatioru
8, 14 and 15, gives:
Q=k tLCL (2to -!La,)
A
Primary liner~ /JI ... -/----..... 2§ t / -------:s;_j-D"1_
Secondary liner
Figure 5. Vertical cross section of the assumed phreatic surface in the leakage co
layer in the case where the leakage collection layer is filled with leachate in a certa
around the primary liner defect.
it al. • Leachate in Leakage Collection Layers Due to Geomembrane Defects
1g (or assuming) tbe leachate bead,.ho,. on top<>f the~ liner vertically
~e primaxy liner defect. one.may derive the virtual leachate thickness, to~ using
4. Then, knowing to, ti.Cl. and k, o.ae may llSe Equation 16 to calculate the rate
te flow through a defect that the leakage collection layer can convey.
lowing equation can be derived from Equation 16:
t =tLCI. (1+~) (17)
0 2 k ,2 I.CL
llowing equation can be derived from Equations 13 and 16:
'= =t. (1 -~l-k~) (18)
)D 18 is valid only if the following condition is met:
Q ~kt; (19)
Id be noted that if tw = t0 , i.e. if the leakage collection layer is filled with lea-
:mly one point, i.e. at the location of the primary liner defect, Equation 16 is
1t to Equation 9.
arametric Study
the equations presented in Sections 3.1 and 3.2 it is possible to compare the
acity of different leakage collection layers in case of a defect in the primary
Table 1. three differenl leakage collection layers are compared:
et with a thickness of 5 mm and a hydraulic transmissivity resulting in°a hy-
: conductivity (obtained by dividing the hydraulic transmissivity by the thick-
,! 1 x 10·1 m/s; ·
~l layer with a thickness of 300 mm and a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10·1
ld
layer with a thickness of300mm and a hydraulic conductivity of 1 x 10·3 m/s.
st two leakage collection layers have the same hydraulic conductivity and the
nave the same thickness. In the case of the geonet, the virtual leachate thick-
considered in Table 1 is greater· than, or equal to, the thickn.ess of the leachate
a layer, tLCJ. ; therefore, in all eases cons.idered in Table l. the gconet is filled
:hate over a certain area around the.defect (this area being zero for ta= 5 mm).
se of the gravel and sand layers, the leachate thicknesses considered in Table
:; than, or equal to, the thickness of the leakage collection layer; therefore, in
considered in Table 1, the gravel and sand layer are not filled (or just filled)
;hate, and for these two materials the leachate thicknesses, l0 , shown in Table
ual (not virtual) thicknesses.
L,,..~~
1 I
I I
A,
GlROUD et al. • Leachate Flow in Leakage Collection Layers Due to < embrane Oefe~
Table 1. Rate of leachate flow in three different leachate coJiection layers resulting from a
defect in the primary liner.
Leakage collection layer material
Leachate thickness Geonet Gravel Sand (actual or ,·irtual) ti.a.=5 mm ILCL =300mm lLCL =300mm
k= 1 x 10-1 rn/s k= 1 x 10·1 m/s k = l X 10-3 m/S
I,, Q Q Q
(m) (mm) (m3/s) (!pd) (m3/s) (!pd) (m3/s) (lpd)
0.005 5 2.5 X lQ·6 216 2.5 X 10-<i 216 2.5 X 10-S 2.16
0.01 10 7.5 X 1Q·6 648 1.0 X lQ·S 864 LO x 10·7 8.64
0.05 50 4.75 X lQ·S 4,104 25x 104 21,600 2.5 X 10·6 216
0.1 100 9.75 X 1Q·S 8,424 l.Q X lQ·J 86,400 LO x 10·5 864
0.3 300 2.975 X lo-4 25,704 9.Q X 10·3 777.600 9.0 X lQ·S 7,776
Notes: The leachate thickness, t0 , can be derived from the leachate head on top of the secondary liner using
Equation 4. The leachate thickness, ,0 , is the actual leachate thickness if t,, < ltcL and a virtual leachate thickness
if r0 > lLCL • The tabulated values of the rate of leachate flow, Q, were calculated using Equation 9 when t,, <
ILCl and Equation 16 when t,, > tuL. Units: 1 m3/s = 86,400,000 liters per day (lpd).
It appears from Table 1, that for a given value of 10 , i.e. a given value of the head of
leachate on top of the secondary liner, ho (see Equation 4), the gravel and the geonet
can convey significantly more leachate than the sand. It is interesting to compare the
flow rates of Table 1 with rates of leachate migration through defects of geomembranes
used alone (i.e. not part of a composite liner) calculated using Bernoulli's equation,
which is expressed as follows: *
Q=0,6aJ2ghr,rin, =0.61t(d2/4:) ~2ghprf,t, = (2/3)d2 -Jih,;; (20) -where: a = defect area; d = defect diameter; g = acceleration due to gravity; and h,,,;,..
= head of leachate on top of the primary liner.
Table 2 gives rates of leachate migration through geomembrane defects calculated
using Equation 20. It appears that, with the leachate heads that typically exist on the
primary liners of actively operating landfills (i.e. landfills that are receiving waste), and
provided that the geomembrane is used alone (i.e. is not part of a composite liner):
• a small geomembrane defect (e.g. 1 to 2 mm diameter), which may occasionally be
undetected during construction, results in a rate of leakage on the order of 100 liters
per day (lpd);
• a geomembrane defect (e.g. 3 to 5 mm diameter), which may occasionally occur dur-
ing construction phases where defect detection may not be possible (e.g. placement
of granular leachate collection material on geomembrane ), results in a rate of leakage
on the order of 1000 lpd (1 m3/day); and .
• a lar~e geomembrane defect (e.e:. 10 mm diameter or more). which mav nccnr nnclP.r
OUD et al. • Lea Flow In Leakage Collection Layers Due to Geomembrane Defects
Wetted Fraction
l Scope of Section 4.4 . ) calculate the rate of leakage through the secondary liner, it is useful to know what
tion of the total surface area of the secondary liner is wetted and what is the average
i of leachate over this fraction of the secondary liner. The wetted fraction is dctcr-
.ed in Sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4, and the average head will be determined in Sections
andS.2.
1 the preceding sections, only one defect in the pri.mar:y liner was considered. This
) longe.r the case in Seaion 4.4 because.the wetted fraction depends on the number
efects perllD.it area. In Section 4.4, two scenarios of defect location will be consid-
1: a scenario where the defects are located to give the maximum wetted fraction, and
enario where the defects are at random.
1 Section 4.4, a leakage collection layer whose length in the direction of the flow
a horizontal projection L, and whose width in the direction perpendicular is B, is
sidered (Figure 9). The projected surface area of this leakage collection layer is
dore:
ALCL =LB (9S)
2 Definitions
ted Frpction. The wetted fraction, R... is defined as the ratio between the surface
1 of the total wetted zone and the surface area of the leakage collection layer:
n•oV LAw
,r-l R = -
.. ALCL
(99)
.s shown by the numerator of the fraction, the surface area of the total wetted zone
1e sum of the surface areas of the wetted zones that correspond to every defect in
primary liner, the number of defects being N.
eel Frequency. The frequency,of defects, F,:in the primary liner (Le. the liner ovcr-
g the leakage collection. layer) is defined as the ratio of the total number of defects,
n the liner and the surface area ofthe liner, which is equal to the surface area of the
;age collection layer:
-...... .. !j N F=-
-x-
(100)
ALcL
1 typical design calculations the frequency of the defects in the primary liner, F, is k..
1med to be known. For example, if there are four defects per hectare (10,000 m2), "7'[' ~ ,,,.. ,.. "'"-"' ?, ;A,.."""'"' -? , ... """ rnr" . _? A . 1 n-4 __ ?
:;
I
t I l
l l I i t I
i t I I
GIROUD et al. • Leachate Flow in Leakage Collection Layers . lo Geomembrane
{a) B
i. ~ Wm.u B (b)
Figure 9. Leakage collection layer zones wetted by leachate migrating through se
defects in the primary liner, assuming no overlapping of wetted zones: (a) •
scenario where all the defects are located at the hlgh end of the leachate collection
slope; (b) random scenario where the defects are randomly distnl>uted.
Notes: Lis the horizontal p~OQ oftbe length of the leakage collection layer in the direction of the
andB is the widtboflhe lc:ak.agecollcctioo layer. The dotsreprescot the horizontal projection of the loa
of 1he ptim.uy liner defects.
Scenarios. Two defect location scenarios will be considered: (i) the worst scei
where all of the defects are at the high end of the leakage collection layer slope (Fi
9a); and (ii) the random scenario where the defects are randomly distributed (Fi
Qh''\ ln hnth crjDn":>-r;nC" 'tt ;~ •·u"'_"_...,..,.,f .,i.,...,. +1....-&-----------.C .s. I!".-•· • n •
ROUDetal. • l ne Flow in Leakage Collection Layers Due to Geomembrane Defects
ta.,:ra'1d Arand = 2 µ + x,a,rd = µS/3 2/' [(l+~)S/2 -2]213 -5µ
9 L frn_h, , µ 18 (192)
Equation 192 is valid only forµ :S 1.0696. Values calculated using Equation 192 are
,en in Table 6. Values of t.,~,,,,,.A,ar.dl(t .... "'""'°'"Awa,si) given in Table 6 forµ> 1.0696 were
lculated from numerical values of )....,,,,,f 1ra"4 given in Table 4 and numerical values
ta,,,.,uJ/t,,.g._.,,,, given in Table 6.
1.4 Average Leachate Thickness Wizen Wetted Zones Overlap
fhe values of the·average leachate thickness given in Sections 5-2.2 and 5.2.3 are val-
only if there is no overlapping of different wetted zones, i.e. if, as shown in Section
;.5;
R,rnor.st ~ Crit { R.,..,IIOl"SI)
R-.,rand ~ Crit ( R ... ,and )
(193)
(194)
f the conditions expressed by Equations 193 and 194 are not satisfied, there is over-
ping between adjacent wetted zones. In this case, the best approach, from a practical
ndpoint, is to assume that the entire area of the leakage collection layer is \vetted.
,ain, the worst scenario and the random scenario are considered. These two scenarios
, defined in Section 4.4.2.
1rst Scenario. In the worst scenario all of the primary liner defects are located at
• higher end of the leakage collection layer slope. Since the wetted zones have been
urned to overlap, it is approximately correct to consider that the en.tire leakage
lection laye:r area is wetted. As a result, the leachate thickness is approx·imately uni-
m over the entire leakage collection layer area provided that the defects are unifonn-
iistributed at the high end of the leakage collection layer slope. The average leachate
:kness is then derived using the classical Darcy's equation, resulting in:
NQ
l""gwo,sr = ~ (195) *
~---
ere: N = total number of defects in the primary liner; Q = rate of leachate migration
ough one defect of the primary liner, all defects being assumed identical and sub-
ted to the same leachate head over the entire surface area of the primary liner; k =
iraulic conductivity of the leakage collection layer material; i = hydraulic gradient
:he leakage collection layer; and B = width of the leakage collection layer.
:ombining Equations 8 and 195 gives:
~ ....... ~
.,,./
NQ
t,,.-gworst = k B sin/3 (196)
;ombinimr Eouatinns QR 100 ~nil 1 Q7 oh, .. i::· "?-:ID
GIROUD et al. • Leachate Flow in Leakage Collection Le. Due to Geomemt:
FLQ
t,,,,gworst = k sin/J
Equations 195 to 197 are valid only if the leakage collection layer is no1
the condition expressed by Equation 11 ( or Equation 12 which is equivalent)
case where the leakage collection layer is full over its entire surface area i
(i) Equations 16 to 18, which where established for the case where the leak
tion layer is full in a limited area around the primary liner defect, are not ;
and (ii) assuming that the virtual thickness of leachate is a constant ( i.i.,) ove
area of the leakage collection layer allows Darcy's equation to be written :
N Q =kB tLcL sin/J
which shows that there is no relationship between Q and t,,.8 • In other words.
indeterminate. Therefore, no solution is proposed for the average leachate
virtual thickness) for the case where the leakage collection layer is filled wit
Random Scenario. In the random scenario, the primary liner defects are
at random. In the case where there are enough defects to assume that the ent:
collection layer area is wetted, the design of a leakage collection layer becor
to the design of a leachate collection layer subjected to a uniform rate of lea
eration. As shown by Giroud and Houlihan (1995), in most practical cases,
value of the leachate thickness is :
/avg L Q/(LB)
L= 2ksin/3
With the notations used in this paper, Equation 199 becomes:
t =--N--'Q=--
a•-i: rand 2 k B sin/3
Combining Equations 98, 100 and 200 gives:
t _ F LQ
a,.-gra,,J -2 k sm./3
Comparing Equations 197 and 200 shows that the average leachate thickm
greater in the worst scenario than in the random scenario. (It should be remen
it has been assumed that, in both cases, the entire surface area of the leakage
layer is wetted.)
Equations 199 co 201 are valid only if the leakage collection layer is not
the condition is expressed by Equation 11 ( or Equation 12 which is equivale
Also, for the reasons indicated after Equation 197, no solution is proposed f,
where the leakage collection layer is full .
.eachate Flow in tge Collect!on Layers Due to Geomembrane Defects
if Primary Liner Defect Frequency on Average Leachate Thickness
ifference between Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 on one hand, and Section
hand should be noted. Equations for l-r_,.,, and ta"HraNi do not depend
uency, F, in Sections 5.2.2 and. 5.2.3, whereas they depend on F in
! reason for that is the following:
2 and 5.23, the wetted zones, that correspond to various defects in
r, do not overlap. The average leachate thickness is the same in any
aal wetted zones and it is calculated for any of them. Consequently,
nate thickness does not depend on the frequency of defects. However,
f defects governs the wetted fraction (i.e. the ratio between the total
:11 wetted zones and the surface area of the leakage collection layer).
, it is assumed that the entire surface area of the leakage collection
ln other words, it is assumed that the wetted fraction is equal to one.
verage leachate thickness is a function of all of the defects in the pri-
consequently, is a function of the defect frequency.
1 note that, when the wetted fraction exceeds the critical value (Sec-
;ign engineer must assume that the individual wetted zones (i.e. the
:orrespond to the individual defects in the primary liner) overlap and
:ions given in Section 5.2.4 lo calculate the average leachate thick-
•hen the wetted fraction does not exceed the critical value, the design
:r use the equations given in Section 5.2.4 or use the equations given
nd 5.2.3. The approach described in Section 5.2.4 is simpler: it con-
b.at the entire leakage collection layer area is wetted. The approach
,ns 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 is more complex but closer to reality: only a frac-
coJJection layer is wetted and, in addition to calculating the average
as shown in Sections 5.2.2 and 5 .2.3, it is necessary to determine the
using equations provided in Section 4.4. The use of both approaches
:ample 6 in Section 6.1.
hes give values of the leachate thickness (and head) that are different
ted zones do not overlap, only the approach described in Sections
es a correct value of the leachate thickness (or head). However, in
:e leachate thickness is only calculaied as a first step in the ca!cula-
:akage through the secondary liner. In this case, both approaches are
>roach described in Section 5.2.4 gives a leachate thickness that is
y distn1mted over the entire secondary liner, while the approach de-
52 .. 2 and 523 gives a greater leachate thickness in the wetted area
side the wetted area. The leakage rates calculated using the leachate
ed as indicated in Section 52.4 are conservative (i.e. greater than
ing the leachate thickness determined as indicated in Sections 5.2.2
iplied by the wetted fraction) because leakage rates typically vary
e head to a power less than one. This will be illustrated quantitative-
fter Example 6.
' )'\
-·? ./'f·~·? 1...--· ;: _ ... ':;,
GIROUD et al. • Leachate Flow in Leakage Collection Layers Due to Ge 1brane Defects
5.3 Time Required to Reach Steady-State Flow Conditions
5.3.1 Equations
The volume of liquid in a porous medium is less than the volume of porous medium
that contains the liquid. As indicated by Equation 143, the volume of leachate in the
leakage collection layer is equal to the volume of the leakage collection layer that con-
tains the leachate multiplied by the porosity, n, of the leakage collection layer material.
The time required for such a volume to pass through the primary liner defect, ireq , gives
a lower boundary of the time required to reach steady-state flow conditions, hence:
-nV trt!f/>Q (202)
Combining Equations 10, 153 and 202 gives the following equation for the case
where the leakage collection layer is not full:
-nx 2nQv2
t,"'l > + ., d/2 ksinP cosP 9si.n:p cosp K
(203)
The last term is generally negligible, because it represents the time required to fill the
volume of the leakage collection layer that contains leachate between axes Oy and VY
(Figure 6). This volume is either small or reduced by truncation (Figure 8). Therefore:
-nx t,.q > k sinftcosp
Equation 204 may be written as follows:
-x/cosP t >---
req ksinftl n
Combining Equations 8 and 205 gives:
-xlcos/J t >--..a...
n:q kiln
(204)
(205)
(206)
where. the numerator is the distance between the primary liner defect and the low end
of the leak.age collection layer slope, and the denominator is the actual liquid velocity
derived from Darcy's equation. Therefore, the right hand member of Equation 204 is
the travel time, t"',., , i.e. the time required by a drop of leachate to travel froni the pri-
mary liner defect to the low end of the leakage collection layer, assuming that flow is
not hampered by capillarity in the leakage collection layer:
nx
tro; > i1ra-...i = k sin p cos P ~ (207)
The GSE Drainage Design Manual, 3rd Edition Appendix A
300 mil HyperNet UF Geonet
Boundary Condition= Geomembrane/Geonet/Geomembrane
1.00E-02 ..-..-----------------------------,
u Cl)
II)
i
b '> 'iii .!!!
E en
C: ~ I-
Seat Time = 100 hours
10,000 psf
15,000 psf
1.00E-03 ·I----~--------~--~--~--~--~--~---1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Gradient
Figure A-7 Performance Transrnissivity of a 300 mil HyperNet UF Geonet.
u Cl) en i
b
1.00E-02
'> 1.00E-03 'iii
.!!? E en C: f I-
1.00E-04
300 mil FabriNet UF Geocomposite Double-sided with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile
Boundary Condition= Geomembrane/Geocomposite/Geomembrane
I Seat Time= 100 hours
'-
'-
--~ 11.000 psf' ---'----10,000 psf1 ----
1 15,000 psf
I
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Gradient
1.0
b
1.0
Figure A-8 Performance Transmissivity of a 300 mil FabriNet UF Geocomposite between Plates.
Source: http://www.gseworl d.com/Online-Drai nage-Desi gn-Manual/Transmi s s ivit y/
Page A-5
/\11"',,\-. -· (\I··/)
GeoSyntec Consultants
GSE 300 mil HyperNet UF (HDPE/GN/HDPE)
I Normal Transmlssivity Thickness Partial Factor of Safety Permeability Stress
(psf) (m2/sec) (mil) (mm) IN CR cc BC (m/sec)
0.10 10,000 3.90E-03 300 7.62 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0 2.13E-01 --~ -~----300 0.25 10,00.Q_ 2.80E-03 7.62 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0 1.53E-01 --f o 2.0 1J) 0.50 10,000 2.10E-03 300 7.62 1.2 1.15E-01 -0.75 10,000 1.BOE-03 300 7.62 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0 9.84E-02
1.00 10,000 1.50E-03 300 7.62 1.0-1.2 2.0 1.0 8.20E-02
300 mil Geonet Permeability
-0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
1.00E+OO
u CIJ .!!! .§.
f :s m -E 1.00E-01 .. CIJ C.
y = 0.0854x-0-408
R"= 0.9942
1.00E-02
hydraulic gradient (i)
Cell SA ALR.091212.xlsm 1
C
l
i: "" 402 Designing with Geonets Chap./{~
:i '
-:O'f:_\'(
4.1,6 Allowable Flow Rate !~
As described previously, the very essence of the design-by-function concept is the es.
tablishment of an adequate factor of safety. For geonets, where flow rate is the primary
function, this takes the following form.
where
FS = __ q_Q!l'l..W.
q,cq<I
(4,3)
FS = factor of safety (to handle unknown loading conditions or uncertainties
in the design method, etc.),
qauow = allowable flow rnte as obtained from laboratory testing, and
qrcqd = required flow rate as obtained from design of the actual system.
Alternatively, we could work from transmissivity to obtain the equivalent rcla1ionship.
FS=~
Orcqd
(4.4)
where O is the trnnsmissivity, under definitions as above. As discussed previously. how-
ever, it is preferable to design with flow rate rather than with transmissivity because of
nonlaminar flow conditions In geonels.
Concerning the allowable flow rote or transmissivity value, which coml'~ from
hydraulic testing of the type described in Section 4.1.3, we must assess the rL"illism of
the test setup in contrast lo lhe actual field system. If the lest setup docs not nrnd~l site-
specific conditions adequately, then adjustments to the laboratory value must hl' made.
This is usually the case. Thus the \abonll°ory-generatccl value is an ultimate ,·;iluc that
must be reduced before use in design; that is,
qullow < CJull
One way of doing this is to ascribe reduction factors on each of the items 111)\ nclc-
quntely assessed in the laborntory tesl. For example,
(J.,uow -l/ullL~F,N X 1iFc11 ~ RFcc X RF,,J (-l.5}
or if all of the reduction factors me consiclerecl together.
where
qnJlow = (Ju11[nkr J (4.6)
qu11 = flow rnte determined using ASTM D4716 or ISO/DIS 12958 for short-
term tests between solid platens using water as the transported liquid
under laboratory test temperatures,
,t
I'
,
Sec. 4.1
R1
RI
JU
rn
Some gu
given in
informal
and liqu:
specific I
the pnrti
amplcs 4
tion fact,
Exam11le .
Wh
n re
tksi
rig.ii
Soh
Eq.
TABLE
FORD
Sport
Cnpll
Roof
Retai
!llH
Drnir
Stu fa
Secor
(ln1
Prima
(lar
"These
the den
issue.
,t At~M 1-161·>-·r c//j
:h Geonets
io ncept is the es,
Jw rate is the primary
(4.3)
ons or uncertainties
.ing, and
tual system.
uivalent relationship.
( 4.4)
,sed previously. how~
m1issivity because of
., which comes from
:'lssess the realism of
does nol model site-
value must be made.
1 l' ,Le value !hat
· the items nol ade-
(4.5)
(4.6)
; 12958 for shorl·
ansportcd liquid
,.
}.:< ~~
Sec. 4.1 Geonet Properties and Test Methods 403
qnllow = allowable flow rate to be used in Eq. (4.3) for final design purposes,
RFIN = reduction factor for elastic deformation, or intrusion, of the adjacent
geosynthetics into the geonet's co1·e ~pace,
RFCR = reduction factor for creep deformation of the geonet and/or adjacent
gcosynthetics into the geonet's core space,
RF cc = reduction factor for chemical clogging and/or precipitation of chemicals
in the geonet's core space,
RFnc = reduction factor for biological clogging in the gconet's core space, and
IlRF = product of all reduction factors for the site-specific conditions.
Some guidelines for the various reduction factors to be used in different situations are
given in Table 4.2. Please note lhal some of these values are based on relatively sparse
information. Other reductlan factors, sucb as installalion dnmage, temperature effects,
and liquid turbidity, could also be included. 1f needed, they can be included on a site-
specific basis. On the other hand, if the actual laboratory test procedure has included
the particular item, it would appear in the above formulation as a value of unity. Ex-
amples 4.2 and 4.3 illustrate the use of geonets and serve to point out that high reduc-
tion factors are warranted in critical situations.
Example 4.2
l
\.Vbat is the 111lowi1blc geonel flow rate to be used in the design of a capillary brenk beneath
a ro:idwny to prevent frost henve'l Assume tlrnt laboratory testing was clone at the proper
design lo;1d and hydrnulic g.rndienl nnd that this testing yielded a shoh-tcrm between-
rigi<l-plutes value of 2.:i x 10·-·1 m2/s.
Solution: Since helter information is n<lt known, average values from Table 4.2 are used in
Eq. (4.5).
TABLE 4.2 RECOMMENDED PRELIMINARY REDUCTION FACTOR VALUES FOR EQ. (4.5)
FOR DETERMINING ALLOWABLE FLOW RATE OR TRANSMISSIVITY OF GEONETS
Applicatio11 Arca RF1.v RFc:,/ RFcc: RF11c
Sporl fields I.() to 1.2 1.0 to 1.5 1.() to 1.2 I.I to 1.3
Capillary brc11ks J. I to 1.3 J.O 10 1.2 1.1 IQ 1.5 t.1 to l.3
Roof nod plnza dcck~ 1.2 lo 1.4 1.0 to J.2 1.0 to J.2 I.I to 1.3
Retaining wall~.sccping rock, 1.3 to 1.5 1.2 to 1.4 J.1 to 1.5 1.0 to f . .'i
and soil slopes
Drninage blankets J.3 to 1.5 l.2 lo 1.4 1.0 to 1.2 J.O to 1.2
Surface wnler <lrnins for 1.3 to l..'i I.I to 1.4 l.O to 1.2 1.2 to 1.5
landfill covers
Sccond,1ry leachate collcclion 1.5 to 2.0 1.4 to 2.0 1.5 to 2.0 1.5 to 2.0
(hmdlllls)
Primary leachate collection 1.5 to 2.0 l .4 to 2.0 J .5 to 2.0 1.5 to 2.0
(luncllllls)
*These values arc sensi1ivc lO the density of the resiu used in lhc gconet's manufac!Ure. "Jbe higher
the density, the lower the reduction factor. Creep of the covering georextilc(s) is a p1·oduc1-specific
issue.
TRI/ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
A Texas Research International Company
GEOMEMBRANE TEST RES UL TS
TRI Client: Agru America
Project: Product Characterization
Material: Agru Geomembrane -60 mil HDPE Smooth I 60 mil HOPE Drain Liner
Sample Identification: No Label
TRI Log#: E2231-6B-01
PARAMETER
Hydraulic Transmisslvity (ASTM D 4716)
Direction Teated: Machine Direction
Profile (Top to Bottom): Plate/60 mll Smooth HOPE Geomembrane/60 mll Drain Liner HOPE Geomembrane (Studs Up)/Plate
Penneant: Water
CompreHlve Load (paf): 15000
Hydraulic Gradient: 1.0
Seat nme (hours): 0.25
Test Temperature (C) 23
Flow Rate/Unit Width (GPM/ft width) 9.27 9.45 9.19 10.24 9.99 9.95
Hydraulic Transmlulvlty (m2/s) 1 BE-03 1.BE-03 1.BE-03 2.0E-03 1.9E-03 1.9E-03
CompreHlve Load (psf): 15000
Hydraullc Gradient: 0.5
Seat nme (hours): 0.25
Test Temperature (C) 23
Flow Rate/Unit Width (GPM/ft width) 6.09 6.37 6.16 6.51 6.59 6.68
Hydraulic Tranamlulvlty (m2/a) 2.3E-03 2.SE-03 2.4E-03 2.5E-03 2.5E-03 2,6E-03
Compreulve Load (psf): 15000
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.33
Seat nme (hours): 0.25
Test Temperature (C) 23
Flow Rate/Unit Width (GPM/ft width) 4.95 4.90 5.08 5.39 5.30 5.30
Hydraulic Transmlsalvlty (m2/1) 2.9E-03 2.BE-03 2.9E-03 3.1E-03 3.1E-03 3.1E-03
Compressive Load (psf): 15000
Hydraulic Gradient: 0.1
Seat nme (hours): 0.25
Test Temperature (C) 23
Flow Rate/Unit Width (GPM/ft width) 2.52 2.52 2.51 2.50 2.66 2.68
Hydraullc Transmlnlvlty (m2/s) 4.BE-03 4.9E-03 4.BE-03 4.BE-03 5.1E-03 5.2E-03
The testing herein is baeed upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. Test results reported herein do not apply
to samples other than those tested. TRI neither accepts responslbllity for nor makes daim as to the final use and purpose of the material.
TRI observes and maintains dlent confidentiality. TRI limits reproduction of this report, except in full, without prior approval of TRI
STD. PROJ
MEAN DEV. SPEC
~ 0.397
3 7.6E-05 BE-04 min
~ 0.217
3 8.3E-05 BE-04 min
~ 0.188
3 1.1E-04 BE-04 min
~ 0.076
3 1.5E-04 BE-04 min
9083 Bee Caves Road I Austin, Texas 78733 / 512 263 2101 I 512 263 2558
13 of 13
!Appendix F (1/3) I
""' ,,
Cil<SJ~ .. ~
Drain Linet "'/SJ110Qth HOPE
l.QE~.02
"u' cu g!) .._
Transmissivity und~r 15,QQQ pst !
Normal stress
ASTMD4716
.e-.... ~ ....
-~
Ill ii ~
1.0E-00, I . 4. . I ' j -4 •• -::;4: .. 0.0 0.2
!Appendix F (2/3) j
GeoSyntec Consultants
Agru Drain Liner 130 mil (HOPE/HOPE)
I Normal Transmissivity Thickness Partial Factor of Safety Permeability Stress
(psf) (m2/sec) (mil) (mm) IN CR cc BC (m/sec)
0.10 15,000 4.90E-03 130 3.3 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0 6.1 BE-01 ----0.33 __ 1~,000 .. _ 3.00E-03 130 3.3 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0 3.79E-01 --2.50E-03 -0.50 15,000 130 3.3 1.0 1.2 2.0 1.0 3.15E-01 -·-1-:SOE-03 130 3T ~ 1.2 1.0 2.40E-01 -1.00 15,000 2.0
130 mil Drain Liner
Permeability
-0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
1.00E+OO
u cu .!!! .5.
f y = 0.2388~·413 1i nl R2 = 0.9998 cu e 1.00E-01 ·
cu Q.
1.00E-02
hydraulic gradient (i)
Cell SA ALR.091212.xlsm 1
ii ,f tci,A<Aj r ~
12/18/2012
P119e __ of _
Geosyntec •>
Wrltt~ by. _ _ -·-· _______ ·-·Date: ___ J _____ J,_ Aevlewedby: ____ Date:_I_I __
consultants DD MM YY DD MM YY
dlenr: ----Project:-··-·----··--· _____ Project/Proposal No. ___ TaskNo. -·--------
A~·. +4'\n ---·-~--
Cl+.o.L \!md Q\Ur<'le.. ~ ~00"\if\~ \,-\ \~ M."
~ . ~ ,~ ·2._L-l\('\Z.)(.a .,~\~-::-~ \'Z..1n
' l
~ ,-h..f _) ¢
I
'!J_ =
~ ;:n.>f"t:>
\-\b,~J-r ~ \ 30 \'Y"l\ \ b o .. \~ l n I
I
"1(), 9u1'.::> G '1'1-)~11 QC!.; 1• BO
IClui t . 0 \JO\TI)~S
I ~ C>,C() 0_ .2_
\J sr= a '<ai\\c \Y"\~
f
~-t-~1 ~~,.,.-\1>£--r-----,~--"-+--+--+-If--+-~
Geosyntec t>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project/
Client: -'E=F;;.____ Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB Proposal No.: SC0634
Title of Computations
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
Task No. 02
EVALUATION OF LINER SYSTEM ANCHOR TRENCH
CAPACITY
Title
Signature ~----1-2 /~c/ I<
PrintedNam~o, P.E. Date
Title Project Engineer
Signature ~----
Date
Title
T. Corcoran Date
cipal Engineer
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By Checked by Approval
SC0634.Anchorage.20121026.F .calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 1 of 5
Written by: R.Fl)_'.RR Date: 11/11/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,ll 1BI ,z
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells 5A & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
EVALUATION OF LINER SYSTEM ANCHOR TRENCH CAPACITY
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
OBJECTIVE
The project includes the installation of a triple composite liner system within Cells 5A
and SB at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. The proposed liner system and
anchor trench is shown in Attachment A. The objective of this calculation package is to
evaluate the tensile strength capacity for anchorage of the liner system at termination
locations of the liner system with respect to wind uplift forces on the geomembrane.
The anchor capacity presented herein is applicable to geomembrane pullout. The anchor
trench is evaluated for two conditions: the interim construction condition and the final
condition. In the interim condition, the liner is temporarily secured in the anchor trench
with 1 ft of soil cover while the remaining liner components are deployed.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Anchor trench capacity is evaluated using methods and equations presented by Koerner
(1998) and are included as Attachment B.
Koerner (1998) presents design equations developed from static equilibrium to evaluate
the allowable geosynthetic tension from an anchor trench (see Attachment B). The
equation considers frictional resistance due to (i) overburden pressures, (ii) anchor
trench side slopes, and (iii) base of the anchor trench. The proposed design equation for
determination of the allowable geomembrane tension from an anchor trench is:
Tu1t =Fu+ FL+ FAT-SIDEI + FAT-SIDE2 + FAT-BASEI+ FAT-BASE2
Where: T ult = Ultimate tensile force in the geomembrane;
Fu = Friction force above the geosynthetics;
FL = Friction force below the geosynthetics;
Fu, FL = q tano(LRo)
q = surcharge pressure due to soil overburden
= depth of soil in anchor trench x unit weight
SC0634.Anchorage.20121026.F .calc.docx
(3)
Written by:
Client: EF
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 2 of 5
R. Flynn Date: 11/11/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1zj~l1i-
Project: WMM-Cells 5A & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
81,2 = minimum friction angle between liner system interfaces and the
soil
LRo = Runout length subjected to overburden
FAT-SIDE = Friction force due to the side of the anchor trench at each
interface;
FAT-SIDE= (crh)ave x tan8 (dAT)
(crh)ave = average horizontal stress in the anchor trench= Ko(crv)ave
K0 = coefficient of earth pressure at rest = 1-sin<l>
<I> = friction angle of backfill soil
(crv)ave = vertical overburden stress (depth of soil at mid-point of trench
(plus additional overburden) multiplied by the soil unit weight
(y))
dA T = depth of the anchor trench = 1 ft
FAT-BASE = Friction force due to the base of the anchor trench at each
interface;
FAT-BASE= q tan81,2(LAT)
LAT = width of the anchor trench= 2 ft
For this site, overburden will not be placed on top of the liner beyond the anchor trench,
therefore LRo = 0. So the equation for the allowable geomembrane tension from an
anchor trench now becomes:
T ult= F AT-SIDEl + F AT-S1DE2 + F AT-BASEi+ F AT-BASE2
ANALYSIS
Evaluating Variables
Since tension may develop in the geomembrane (see the calculation package Tension
due to Wind Uplift) due to wind uplift forces and thermal forces, frictional forces will
be mobilized along the geosynthetic and soil interfaces on the side and base of the
SC0634.Anchorage.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 3 of 5
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 11/11/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 12.l1w\it
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
anchor trench. The 75 percent of the maximum wind speed at the site was used to
evaluate the interim construction conditions (resulting in 18.75 mph). The load due to
the interim wind uplift is 9 .2 lb/in. (110 lb/ft). The maximum wind speed at the site was
used to evaluate the final conditions. The load due to the maximum wind uplift is 17. 7
lb/in (212.4 lb/ft) (see the calculation package Geomembrane Tension due to Wind
Uplift). The maximum load is used for the final condition. For the analysis presented
herein, the following two interfaces are evaluated:
I. A friction angle of 18 degrees will be used to represent the interface
friction value between the anchor trench backfill and the smooth
geomembrane (Attachment C).
2. A friction angle of 15 degrees will be used to represent the interface
friction value between the geomembrane and the drain liner (Attachment
D).
For determination of the surcharge due to soil overburden, q, and the vertical and
horizontal overburden stresses, crh and crv, a unit weight of overburden soil of 125
pounds per cubic foot (pct) was used. For evaluation of the effective horizontal
overburden stress based on the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, a friction angle of 34
degrees was used for the soil. See Slope Stability calculation package for material
parameter assumptions.
Interim Condition Final Condition
From Equation (3): From Equation (3):
Tult =FAT-SIDE!+ FAT-SIDE2 Tult =FAT-SIDE!+ FAT-Sl0E2
F AT-BAsm+ F AT-BASE2 F AT-BASEi+ F AT-BASE2
SC0634.Anchorage.20121026.F. calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 4 of 5
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 11/11/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: lt,\i\11,...
Task 02 Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells 5A & Project/ SC0634
5B Proposal No.: No.:
FAT-SIDE] = (ah tve tan81 (dAT)
= K 0 (av te {r )tan8(dAT)
= (1-sin26°(~ (1 ft))x
(125 pcf}tanl8°(1 ft)
= 11 lb/ft
FAT-SIDE2 =(ah tve tan82 (d AT)
= Ko (av te (y }tano(dAT)
= (1-sin26°(~ (1 ft)) x
(125 pcf }tanl5°(1 ft)
= 9 lb/ft
FAT-BASEi =qtan81(LAT)
= 1 ft(125 pcf}tan18°(2 ft)
= 8Ilb/ft
FAT-BAsE2 = qtan82 (LAT)
Tu1t
Tuu
= 1 ft(l 25 pcf }tanl 8°(2 ft)
= 8Ilb/ft
= FAT-SIDE! + FAT-
S1DE2 + F AT-BASEi+
FAT-BASE2
= 11 + 9 + 81 + 81
= 182 lb/ft > 118
lb/ftOK
SC0634.Anchorage.20121026,F.calc.docx
FAT-SIDE!= (ahtvetan81(dAT)
= K0 (av tc {y }tan8(dAT)
= (1-sin26°(i(l.5ft))x
(125 pcf }tanl 8°(1.5 ft)
= 25 lb/ft
FAT-SIDE2 =(ahtvetan82(dAT)
= Ko (a Jave (y }tano(dAT)
= (1-sin26°(~ (1.5ft))x
(125 pcf}tanl5°(1.5 ft)
= 21 lb/ft
FAT-BASEi = qtan81 (LAT)
= 1.5 ft(l 25 pcf )tanl 8°(2 ft)
= 122 lb/ft
F AT-BAsE2 = qtan82 (LAT)
Tu1t
= 1.5 ft(125 pcf }tanl8°(2 ft)
= 122 lb/ft
= FAT-SIDE! + FAT·
SIDE2 + F AT-BASEi+
F AT-BASE2
= 25 + 21 + 122 +
122
T ult = 290 lb/ft> 220 lb/ftOK
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 5 of s
Written by: R.Flxnn Date: 11/11/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,z.\ \9\ It.
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
CONCLUSIONS
The tensile capacity of the anchorage system as calculated herein exceeds the expected
interim and long-term wind uplift tensile loads (from the calculation package entitled
Evaluation of Tension due to Wind Uplift). The expected tensile load due to wind uplift
was evaluated to be 118 and 220 lb/ft for the interim and final conditions, respectively.
The capacity of the interim and long-term anchor trenches are 182 and 3 70 lb/ft,
respectively. Therefore, the anchorage design for the geomembrane is adequate.
Based on the methods employed herein, results of analysis indicate that the design
anchorage evaluated provides adequate tensile capacity to resist geomembrane tension
induced by wind uplift forces.
NOTES TO PROJECT DOCUMENTS
The interim anchor trench shall have a minimum of 1 ft soil cover and a minimum 2 ft
in width. The final anchor trench shall be a minimum of 1.5 ft deep and 2 ft. If an
interim anchor trench is utilized, the total anchor trench depth shall be 3.5 ft in depth
and 2 ft in width. The anchor trench shall be located at least 3 ft from the crest of the
slope.
REFERENCES
Koerner, R.M. (1998), "Designing with Geosynthetics," 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall Inc.:
Upper Saddle River, NJ. (Attachment B)
GSE Lining Technology. "GSE FrictionFlex Application Data." Technical Note.
(Attachment C)
Interface Friction Angle Testing by TRI Environmental carried out in accordance with
ASTM D5321. (Attachment D)
Hunt, Roy E. (1983). Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, McGraw-Hill:
New York. (Attachment D)
SC0634.Anchorage.2012 l 026.F.calc.docx
•
ISOMILHCPE
GEO MEMBRANE -DRAIN LINER
~-i~~~-%*-:::~ " .... = .... ~ '\» *''~ -~%-~ ~~-,
9 DETAIL
1>,'~ --, .. " ·-~-'-'' ~~--. ,. ~ ~o~ •. ,&-,,. ,~-'-\ '\'~ ... ~ ~ ~ "· x ~,;:--'\ ~ ' ' ~-~-&· ' -~ " ;. ,,
10 DETAIL
'03A,038,04A. 048 BASE LINER SYSTEM 03A..038,04A_D4B SIDE SLOPE LINER SYSTEM
s:::Al.Et""2'
E §
!
' i I
1 · .. -
' I::
O:,t ~ .. ....
&~ e:-,.._ r ~;-.,,, ~~~~~
~--;t<.. ....... -~~-../!~ " "S/.'j .-~ %; -~ '~ . '~
CONCRETE PIPE 6\
SUPPORT ~
._... '~-.~\'
12 \ DETAIL
04A,04B SECONDARY LEAK DETECTION
RISER PENETRATION
SCA.LE1'"2°
TERMINATEVIOVEN GEOT£XTILE
AND MAP PIPE
~PIPE/19'\ JIPOI\I @
14
04A,04B
DETAIL
SLIMES DRAIN RISER
PENETRATION
jt,ij
-Clelil.E1tD,l.a,Ol'l2r'-.)l'NClfil.fl'.&UOE019-!E11Tl'ill~>1ll'X'.l."1
Ja:C,.M,,o,,f
11A DETAIL 1rn
0JA.OJB.04A01B.05..06.09 ANCHOR TRENCH 03A,03B
allCIClllUll]OI~
DETAIL
ACCESS ROAD & ANCHOR TRENCH """',...,
., .... _.
~rfili,QOf)i"
!IOOF"~WJMW
~~7 .~ r ;i_~ t~ ~ ~-.~
13
04A,04B
DETAIL
PRIMARY LEAK DETECTION
SYSTEM RISER PENETRATION
SCALE t"s2'
fmiOl'"ll.OPC
t ( ~I >VCSCHEDJIHJPVC ; j · -IM" HOLES S<AGGERED • • EVERY121NCHES
I= ,r ::::J "\ ;-
15
01.oa
60~ -+-&}'
DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE ,cM.l ,.. ,.
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
':. 1 CETALS ARE SHCM'N TO SCA.LE INDIQ,TED EXCEPT FOR THE
GEOSYNTHETICS W-UCH ARE~ AT AN EXAGGERATED
SCI\LEFORCI.ARITY
l' ~f~W.rl(~~ ..... 91,jll,l,U;J.'ol:Jlil
ta'?J,t(F)..5,SWtHt,N),FQl"(IF-~te~
EACH GEOMEMBRANE IN BOTTOM CIF ANO-OR TRENCH
J PREPARED SU8GRJIDE AT CE.Ll.. BASE SHALL CONSIST OF AT LEAST 6-INO,ES CF FILL OVERLYING SANDSTONE IN ACCORC\6.NCE WTH SECTIONS 02200 AND 02220 CF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIO>JS ALL LOOSE 1131..ASTED OR RIPPED) SOIL AND ROCK SHALL BE REMOVED TO EXPOSE COMPETENT SQl..rllCOl:HIQ:ITOJ:11...tOGl;l'~fLI..
[Attachment A
Geosyntec0
""''"'"""" 1087'1WCHOIIERNAROORO,SJTE:zm =-~;:4= eF ,---.--..
LINER SYSTEM DETAILS I
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND SB
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
T><ISO....,,,..C ... VNOTIEl!<Sl..lf:C
CONS'T'IUCTIO'<LJNlESSSE,1,1.EO -,... SCD634-05-07
~ ____QL .. __J_Q_
r -' .
Source: Koerner, R.M (1998). "Designing with
Geosynthetics, " 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
5.3.6 Runout and Anchor Trench Design
.... ·, ·------~--~,."!". -----------··
-----.
As shown in Figure 5.21 and the subsequent profile sections of geomembrane-lined
reservoirs the liner comes up from the bottom of the excavation, covers the side slopes,
and then runs over the top a short distance. It often tenninates vertically down into an
anchor trench. TI1is anchor trench is typically dug by a small backhoe or trenching ma-
chine~ the liner is draped over the edge, and ·then the trench is backfilled with the same
.soil that was there originally. The baekfilled soil should be compacted in layers as the
backfilling proceeds. Although concrete has been used as an anchorage block, it is
rarely justified, at least on the basis of calculations, as will be seen in this section.
Regarding design, two separate cases will be analyzed: one with geomembrane
runout only and no anchor trench at all (as is often used with canal liners), and the
other as described above, with both runout and anchor trench considerations (as with
reservoirs and landfills). Figure 5.30 defines the first situation, together with the forces
and stresses involved. Note that the cover soil applies normal stress due to its weight,
but does not contribute frictional resistance above the geomembrane. This is due to the
fact that the soil moves along with the geomembrane as it deforms and undoubtedly
cracks> thereby losing its integrity. ·
From Figure S.301 the following horizontal force summation results, which leads
to the appro_priate design equatien.
488
T
Designing with Geomembranes
Tsin{J
Un
! i t ! i ! I i i ' Tcos/3 ~ Ua ...
FLo ... Fn ...
i t t i t i .l .l i
I I I I I 2~:nP ~~
LRO
Figure 5.30 Cross section of geomembrane run out section and related stresses and
forces involved.
where
Tallow = allowable force in geornernbrane stress = O'aJJowt, where
u.110w = allowable stress in geomembrane, and
t = thickness of geornernbrane;
f3 = side slope angle;
F UCT = shear force above geomembrane due to cover soil (note that for t
cover soils tensile cracking will occur and this value will be negligi;
':!
,, ....
Koerner, R.M. (1998). "Desfkfi~g_\v1t1
Geosynthetics,,. 4th Editfa,ni·fte_rlflc~.J:(all:
Upper Saddle River, NJ. : . : • · ·
..•
Sec. 5.3 Liquid Containment (Pond) Liners
FLcr = shear force below geomembrane due to cover soil;
F z.:r = shear force below geomembrane due to vertical component of Ta1iow;
u11 = applied normal stress from cover soil;
8 = angle of shearing resistance between geomembrane and adjacent mater-
ial (i.e., soil or geotextile ); and
LRo = length of geomembrane runout.
Example 5.13 i11ustrates the use of the concept and the equations just developed.
Example 5.13
Consider a 1.0 mm thick VLDPE geomembrane with a mobilized allowable stress of
7000 kPa, which is on a 3(11) to l(V) side slope. Determine the required runout length to
resist this stress without use of a vertical anchor trench. In this analysis use 300 mm of
cover soil weighing 16.5 kN/m3 and a friction angle of 30° with the geomembrane.
Solution: From the design equations just presented,
= (7000)(0.001)
Tallow = 7 ,0 kN /m
and
L _ T,now(cos {3 -sin /3 tan Bi )
RO -a-.(tan ou + tan llL)
(7.0)lcos 18.4 -(sin 18.4)(tan 30))
-(16.5)(0.30)[tan O + tan 30]
5.37 =-2.86
LRo = 1.9m
Note that this value is strongly dependent on the value of mobilized allowable stress used
in the analysis. To mobilize the failure strength of the geomembrane would require a
longer runout length or embedment in an anchor trench. This, however, might not be de-
sirable. Pullout without geomembrane failure might be a preferable phenomenon. It is a
site-specific situation.
The situation with an anchor trench at the end of the runout section is illustrated
in Figure 5.31. The configuration requires some important assumptions regarding the
state of stress within the anchor trench and its resistance mechanism. In order to pro-
vide lateral resistance, the vertical distance within the anchor trench has lateral forces
acting upon it. More specifically, an active earth pressure (PA) is tending to destabilize
the situation, whereas a passive earth pressure (Pp) is tending to resist pullout. As will
Koerner, R.M. (J 998). 11Desf8!11hg with
Geosynthetics, '1 4th Editfon;-Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, N/. _.
490
i---1,--~
(i1'l \,S
\l\t'
Designing with Geomembranes
(q, + i'ArdAr )Kp f O-n + YArdAr )K.
Figure 5.31 Cross section of geomembrane runout section with anchor trench and
related stresses and forces involved.
be shown, this passive earth pressure is very effective in providing a resisting force (seei'
Holtz and Kovacs [ 44]). Using the free-body diagram in Figure 5.31, ·
IFx = O
Koerner, R.M (1998). "De.fipilng .with
Geosynthetics, " 4th Edition.::.prentic,e.Jlal/:
Upper Saddle River., ,J,{J, · --
;;ee
16)
Sec. 6.3 Liquid Containment (Pond) Liners 491
where
T1110w = allowable force in geomembrane = u8110wt, where
cr0110w = allowable stress in geomembrane, and
t = thickness of geomembrane;
f3 = side slope angle;
Fu,,= shear force above geomembrane due to cover soil (note that for thin
cover soils, tensile cracking will occur, and this value will be negligible);
FL,,= shear force below geomembrane due to cover soil;
FLr = shear force below geomembrane due to vertical component of Tallow;
PA = active each pressure against the backfill side of the anchor trench; and
Pp= passive earth pressure against the in-situ side of the anchor trench. ·
The values of Furn FLrn and FLT have been defined previously. The values of PA and Pp
require the use of lateral earth pressure theory.
where
'YAT = unit weight of soil in anchor trench,
dAT = depth of the anchor trench,
<Tn = applied normal stress from cover soil,
KA = coefficient of active earth pressure= tan2 (45 -¢/2),
Kp = coefficient of passive earth pressure= tan2 (45 + ¢/2), and
cp = angle of shearing resistance of respective soil.
(5.27)
(5.28)
This situation results in one equation with two unknowns; thus a choice of either LRo
or dAT is necessary to calculate the other. As with the previous situation, the factor of
safety is placed on the geomembrane force T, which is used as an allowable value, Tallow·
Example 5.14 illustrates the procedure.
Example 5.14
Consider a 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane extending out of a facility as shown in Fig-
ure 5.31. What depth anchor trench is needed if the runout distance is constrained to
1.0rn? In the solution, use a geomembrane allowable stress of 16,000 kPa on a 3(H) to l(V)
side slope. There are 300 mm of cover soil at 16.5 kN/m3 placed over the geomembrane
runout and anchor trench (this is also the unit weight of the anchor trench soil). The fric-
tion angle of the geomembrane to the soil is 30° (although assume 0° for the top of the gee-
membrane under a soil-cracking assumption) and the soil itself is 35°.
Koerner, R.M (1998). "Designing with
Geosynthetics," 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall.·
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
492 Designing with Geomembranes
Solution: Using the previously developed design equations based on Figure 5.31:
and
= 16000(0.0015)
= 24.0kN/m
= (0.3)(16.5) tan O(LRo)
=O
= (0.3)(16.5) tan 30(LR0 )
= 2.86LRO
= (24.0) sin 18.4 tan 30
= 4.37 kN/m
PA = (O.SyA:rdAr + a")KAdAT
= [(0.5)(16.5)d,47 + (0.3)(16.5)] tan2 (45 -35/2) dAT
= [B.25dAT + 4.95)(0.271)dAT
= 2.24d~T + 1.34dAT
Pp= (0.5yA:,dAT + an)KpdAT
= [(0.5)(16.5)dAT + (0.3)(16.5)) tan2 (45 + 35/2) d,4 7
= [8.25dAT + 4.95](3.69)dAT
= 30.4~T + 18.3dAT .. . ~j
This is substituted into the general force equation (Eq. (5.26)) to arrive at the solution hi~
terms of the two variables LRo and d,47•
(24.0) cos 18.4 = 0 + 2.86LRo + 4.37 -2.24d_;T -1.34d,47 + 30.4dlr + 18.3dAT
18.4 = 2.86LRo + 17.0d,1.r + 28.2djr
Koerner, R.M (1998). "Desig,,ing with
Geosynthetics," 4th Edition.' .Prentice-Hall:
Upper Sadd~e Riv~r, N.J.
• •• •<i . ..
t,. Sec. 5.3 Liquid Containment (Pond) Liners
Since LRo = 1.0 m, the equation can be solved for the unknown d,41'
d,1r= 0.50m
Using this formulation we can develop a design chart for a wide range of geomem-
branes and thicknesses as characterized by different values of Tallow· For the specific
conditions of Example 5.14,
f3 = 18.4°, which is 3(H) to l(V)
= (0.30)(16.5)
= 4.95kN/m2
</> = 35°
'YAT = 16.5 kN/m3
8AT = 3Qo
the response in terms of the two unknowns LRo and dAr is given in the following figure.
Using this figure, Example 5.14 with the 1.5 mm thick HDPE at 24.0 kN/m gives an an-
chor trench depth of 0.50 m for an assumed runout length of 1.0 m. Other values can be
readily selected.
10
9
8
7
I 6
0 5
..f-
4
3
2
0
0 5 10
Koern er, R.M (1998). "Designing with
Geosynthetics," 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
15 20 25
Tallow (kN/m)
dAl
>-O.Om ::
dAT 0.1m i:
.d.n 0.2m ""
dAT 0.3m
~
dAT 0.4m
'
dAT o.sm =
...
d O.Bm = ~1',T, .. ,-,.. ,-
30 35 40
494
(/fl -'J
\\\'!.~
Designing with Geomembranes
It should be noted that many manufacturers specify 500 mm deep anchor trencq·
and 1000 mm long runout sections. As seen above, this is very simplistic, for each me
brane type and thickness requires its own analysis. By using a model as presented he
any set of conditions can be used to arrive at a solution. Even situations in which g~
textiles and/or geonets are used in conjunction with the geomembrane (under over,·'.·
both) and brought into the anchor trench can be analyzed in a similar manner.
5.3. 7 Summary
Projects involving liquid containment using geomembranes are often extremely lar~~
With large size come some inherent advantages over smaller projects. Foremost t,
these advantages is that most parties involved take the project seriously and approve Q
and enter into a planned and sequential design procedure. This section was Jaid Oli_
with this in mind, so that the design process proceeded step by step. Each element ~-
design that is made leads to a new issue, which is followed by a new design eJemen
Eventually, the quantitative process is concluded and details, often qualitative by ll~.:,_
ture, must be attended to. These details, such as seam type, seam layout, piping layou,
and appurtenance details, are extremely important. They are, however, common to ait .
geomembrane projects and therefore will be handled in Sections 5.10 and 5.11. ,V'~:
Although such large projects obviously warrant a careful design procedure; ir-,.,.·~.~-t~r,,;
does not follow that smaller projects do not deserve the same attention. Indeed. fail-1:. if:
ures of small liner systems can be significant. Many warrant a design effort comparabl · ·•
to that of large projects, as illustrated in this section.
With this section behind us, we can now focus on other applications involving·
geomembranes. Where a similar analysis is called for, reference will be made back lo,
this section. Thus only new and/or unique features of geomembrane projects will form·
the basis of the sections to follow. ··
5.4 COVERS FOR RESERVOIRS
Geomembrane covers are often used above the liquid surface of storage reservoir_s: :·
They are of fixed, floating, or suspended types. .J't·
'
0 . .'r. 5.4.1 verv1ew . ·,·:'"
'~lt There are a number .of important reasons why liquid containment structures should · rt
covered. These include: losses due to evaporation (up to 84% per year; see Cool~, '
(45]), savings on chlorine treatmenl (for water reservoirs), savings on algae contt')
chemicals (for water reservoirs) reduced air pollution (for reservoirs holding chc
cals), reduced need for drainage and cleaning, increased safety against accitien .
drowning, protection from natural pollution entering the reservoir (e.g., animal excf
tion), and protection from intentional pollution (i.e., sabotage). :
Obviously, a rigid roof structure could be constructed over the reservoir, buti
costs involved are usually prohibitively high. At a far lower cost, both during initial <;g
struction or in a retrofitted system, is the use of an impermeable liner, All the mater.'
Koerner, R.M. (1998). "DesiP!'ing with
Geosynthetics," 4th Edition. l'rentice-Ha/l:
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
* TECHNICAL NOTE
For environmental lining solutions ... the world comes to GSE. *
GSE FrictionFlex· Application Data
GSE's FrictionF1ex process provided the geomembrane
industry's first textured liner. It is the only geomembrane
texturing process ever to be granted a U.S. Patent The
FrictionFlex process begins with smooth GSE membrane that
is manufactured to stringent industry standards. After the
smooth surfaced sheet passes all GSE's standard quality
assurance testing, texturing is added to one or both sides as
required. The patented manufacturing process enables GSE to
produce a textured liner exhibiting the.outstanding mechanical
and chemical properties demanded of GSE's premium grades
of smooth geomembrane liners.
GSE geomembranes textured by the FrictionRex process
can be utilized to improve the factor of safety on steep slopes.
This can increase facility design capacity, service life and ulti-
mately, total revenue potential. GSE's textured geomembranes
can be used to improve a number of applications.
GSE FrictionFlex geomembranes have an approximate
six inch (15 cm) wide edge that remains smooth. This smooth
edge means that GSE's seaming procedures are the same for
FrictionFlex textured geomembranes and smooth geomem-
branes therefore requiring no changes in field quality control.
FrictionFlex liner has many performance benefits when
in contact with soils and synthetics:
• High coefficient of friction with soils
• High coefficient of friction with other geosynthetic
materials
• Premium grade mechanical and chemical properties
• Excellent narrow and wide width tensile elongation
The table below shows typical comparative data for
smooth and FrictionFlex textured geomembranes. Testing
was performed according to AS1M D 5321. GSE recom-
mends that specific data be developed for all application
designs. Shearbox testing of the specific geosynthetic and
natural components of the composite is necessary to establish
an appropriate design basis. GSE will be pleased to provide
material samples for such purposes.
Friction Angle Comparison -Smooth vs. Frictionflex Textured Geomembranes
Smoolh Geomembrone GSE FridionFlex Textured Liner Materials
Materiel Friction Angle Adhesion Friction Angle
(deg.) (lb/ff) (deg.)
Sandy Glacial TIii 20 27 36
Sandy Cloy 18 ~ 65 35
Smooth Cloy 16 39 32
Ottawa Sand 19 21 30
Non-woven Geotextile 12 133 33
.
This information is provided For reference purpo5es only and i5 no/ in/ended as a worronly or guarantee. GSE assumes no liability in connection with
the use of this information.
* GSE and alher marh used in lnis document are trcdemarb and service morb of GSE lining Technology, Inc.; certain of whic:h are regislered in lhe United States and other countries.
GSE Uning Ttcbaology, Inc.
Corporate Headquarters
UI 03 Gundl, Road
ouston, Texas 77073
!ISA
.OQ.43S.2008, 28\-443-SS64
FAX: 281-87S.60\ D
GSE lining Technolagy GmbH
European Headquarters
Buxlehuder StraBe 112
D,21073 Homburg
Germany
49-40-767-420
FAX: [phone]-JJ
Visit us at www.gseworld.com.
Sales/laslallalioa Offices
Aullrolio
Egypt
Singapore
United Arab Emiroles
United Kingdom
A Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. Company
Represented by:
TN 001 R09/16/9B
Q · I N:1/t:NVIRONMENTAL, INC.
/ ~ A Texas Research International Company
INTERFACE FRICTION TEST REPORT
Client: Agru
Project: Anne Steacy
Test Date: 7/5-7/5/05
TRI Log#:
Test Method:
E2201-75-03
ASTM D 5321
Tested Interface: Agru 60 mil Studliner vs. Agru 60 mil Smooth Geomembrane
600 ...--------------------,
~ !
i:: 400 t VI
~ .. .. .c VI
E ~ 200 · ·x .. ::;;
0 200 400
Normal Stress (psf)
--Maximum Shear Stress (Linear Fit)
Trial Number
Bearing Slide Resistance (lbs}
Normal Stress (psf}
Maximum Shear Stress (psf}
Corrected Shear Stre
Secant Angle (degrees)
600
Upper Box: Agru 60 mil smooth Geomembrane
Lower Box: Agru 60 mil Studliner
Interface Interface soaked and loading applied
Conditioning: for a minimum of 3 hours prior to shear
Box Dimension: 12"x12"x4"
Test Condition: Wet
Shearing Rate: 0.2 inches/minute
1 2
9 10
125 250
36 82
27 72
12.1 16.0
3
13
500
161
148
16.5
RESULTS: Maximum Friction Angle and Y-intercept
Regression Friction Angle (degrees):
Y-intercept or Regression Adhesion (psf):
Regression Line: Y=
Regression Coefficient (r squared):
16.2
0
0.290
0.986
*X+ 0
John M. Allen, E.I.T., 07/11/2005
Note: The regression line includes the origin. Quality Review/Date
The testing herein is based upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. Test results reported herein do not apply
to samples other than those tested. TRI neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use and purpose of the material.
TRI observes and maintains client confidentiality. TRI limits reproduction of this report, except in full, without prior approval of TRI.
9063 Bee Caves Road o Austin, TX 78733-6201 o [phone] o [phone] o 1-800-880-TEST
Attachment D (1/3)
I rtl/CNVIRONMENTAL, INC.
A Texas Research International Company
INTERFACE FRICTION TEST REPORT
Client: Agru
Project: Anne Steacy
Test Date: 7/5-7/5/05
TRI Log#:
Test Method:
E2201-75-03
ASTM D 5321
Tested Interface: Agru 60 mil Studliner vs. Agru 60 mil Smooth Geomembrane
C' II) ~
II)
II) ~ ~ 400
"' .. .c fJ)
i: .. E .. u "' 200 Q. II) i5 .. E' j
0 200 400
Normal Shear Stress (psf)
--Large Displacement Shear Stress (Linear Fil)
Trial Number
Bearing Slide Resistance (lbs)
Normal Stress (psf)
Large Displacment Shear Stress (psf)
Corrected Shear Stress (psf)
Secant Angle (degrees)
600
Upper Box: Agru 60 mil smooth Geomembrane
Lower Box: Agru 60 mil Studliner
Interface Interface soaked and loading applied
Conditioning: for a minimum of 3 hours prior to shear
Box Dimension: 12"x12"x4"
Test Condition: Wet
Shearing Rate: 0.2 inches/minute
1 2 3
9 10 13
125 250 500
48 90 158
39 80 145
17.2 17.7 16.2
RESULTS: Large Displacement Friction Angle and Y-intercept
at 3.5-in. of Displacement
Regression Friction Angle (degrees):
Y-intercept or Regression Adhesion (psf):
Regression Line: Y=
Rearession Coefficient (r squared):
Large displacement shear stresses interperted at 2 inches of
diplacement due to strain hardening effects.
15.7
6
0.281
0.997
* X + 6
John M. Allen, E.1.T., 07/11/2005
Quality Review/Date
The testing herein is based upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. Test results reported herein do not apply
to samples other than those tested. TRI neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use and purpose of the material.
TRI observes and maintains client confidentiality. TRI limits reproduction of this report, except in full, without prior approval of TRI.
9063 Bee Caves Road D Austin, TX 78733-6201 D [phone] D [phone] D 1-800-880-TEST
Attachment D (2/3)
.Si TRI/ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
/ ~ A Texas Research International Company
AGRU INTERFACE FRICTION TEST
Agru 60 mil Smooth Geomembrane vs.
Agru 60 mil Studliner
200 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
180 --t-
1},,
....-140 '+--en ~ 120 L --------------------------------en en
~ 100 +.-------------------+J Cl)
s.... ro
Q)
..c
Cl)
:i, rt rt Ill (1 [
(l)
::i rt
~ §:t u.....mfilllO 11' rn II OIIIOli jmjjjj 181 II ii mj tmf1Ilfiille ijljj m I On Iii Ii Olnn I 010 mffliii]
t gp _ Ill Ill n 1111 I II 'El.Et'-'-' i-D -•!§Iii . . . -----------------------------,
40 i rr L atlifrio(j]Il)IDaoa~~ I
20 H-F-------------------------------------------l
0 e,----+---t----+----+----+---------------------------------j
0.0 1.0 3.0 4.0
tJ ~ TRI Log No. E2201-75-03
2.0
Displacement (inches)
w
----w o 125 psf D250 psf b,. 500 psf
n n ~? o---r--~ ·--o, ...... _,,.J" n A. , .... 1s:-T V i'0"7')? C'"'.ln ot n IC-t "'I,\ ""ll.Q"> "\.ot f"HI r-, C' I\ V /CA..,,, "'),Q") "'liCCO n ... o"n 001\ TC:C"'T
Geosyntec C>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project/
Client: _E_F___ Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells 5A and 5B Proposal No.; SC0634
Task No.
Title of Computations EMERGENCY SPILL WAY CONCRETE PAVEMENT
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
(originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
s;gnatm~ JY
Pdnted ~ Fl)'.!!!!, P.E.
Title Project Engineer
Signature ~---
PrintedNi~o, P.E.
Title Project Engineer
Signature
Printed Name Keaton Botelho, P .E.
Title
Title
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By Checked by
SC0634.SpillwayConcrete5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Date
1.i. / .J..c.,/, .2..
Date
Date
Date
Date
Approval
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 1 of s
Written by: R.Fl3:'.nn Date: \µ\ \?>\ (u Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: rzj rt/11-
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells 5A Project/ SC0634 Task
and 5B Proposal No.: No.:
EMERGENCY SPILLWAY CONCRETE PAVEMENT
OBJECTIVE
An emergency spillway will be constructed as part of Cell 5A and 5B construction at
the White Mesa Mill, in Blanding, Utah for Energy Fuels (EF). The emergency
spillways are 158 and 120 feet wide for Cells 5A and 5B, respectively, with
approximately 19-foot wide access roads across the crest of the spillway. The
emergency spillway is shown on Sheet 10 of the Construction Drawings prepared by
Geosyntec Consultants. A pick-up truck design loading has been assumed for the
pavement of the access road.
The design of the concrete slab will be performed in accordance with American
Concrete Institute (ACI) Publications 318 and 360 standards (ACI 318 and ACI360).
The objective of this design is to determine the dimensional, reinforcement, and
concrete requirements necessary to withstand the applied loading.
SUMMARY OF DESIGN
Based on the assumptions and calculations presented herein, the slab on grade will be
6 inches thick and consist of concrete with compressive strength of 3,000 pounds per
square inch (psi), and welded wire reinforcement (WWR) fabric sized as 6x6 -
Wl.4xW1.4.
ANALYSIS
Loading conditions
The loading conditions for the slab-on-grade for the emergency spillway is assumed to
be a 12,000 lb loaded truck, which equates to an assumed 4,000 lb front axle loading
and a maximum 8,000 lb rear axle loading. A wheel spacing of 60 inches was assumed.
To determine the required slab thickness, a Wire Reinforcement Institute (WRI)
method, which simulates concentrated loads as the loading resulting from a single-axle,
will be utilized. The method is presented in a report by ACI on the design of slabs on
grade (ACI 360).
SC0634.SpillwayConcrete5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 2 of 5
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: i~ht}\i Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,i/iel12
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA Project/ SC0634 Task
and SB Proposal No.: No.:
Slab on Grad Design Procedure
WRI presents a slab on grade thickness determination method based on the concentrated
loads from the wheels of a forklift (ACI 360). The method accounts for the total axle
load and each wheel individually. The method also takes into account the moments on
the slab caused by the spacing of the wheels.
The determination of slab thickness can be made by following the example presented in
Appendix A of the ACI 360. To utilize this method, some values and properties were
required to be assumed. Modifications to the design may be required if the assumptions
are determined to not be valid.
The design begins with the assumed values of:
• Concrete modulus (Ee)= 3,500 kips per square inch (ksi)
• Modified subgrade modulus (k12) = 400 pounds per cubic inch (pci)
• Compressive strength of concrete (!c ') = 3,000 psi
• Modulus of rupture (MOR or fr) = 7 .5 · fl} ~ 411 psi
• Slab thickness = 6 inches
Note that 1 kip equals 1,000 lbs. The assumed modified subgrade modulus value is for
a sandy soil (Attachment A). The compressive concrete strength, and therefore the
modulus of rupture, can be specified when ordering concrete; this assumed value will
not likely require modification. The value of 6 inches for the slab thickness is an
arbitrary trial "guess", which will be validated or dispelled at the end of applying the
method.
Figure A2.2. l (Attachment B) is utilized to find the relative stiffness parameter (D/k)
based on the above assumed values. The first trial results in a D/k value of 1.5 x 105
in4•
Next, the contact area for each wheel must be converted to determine the diameter of a
hypothetical circle that has the same area. A tire air pressure of 80 psi was assumed for
a loaded truck. The following basic equations were used to determine the equivalent
circle diameter:
SC0634.SpillwayConcrete5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 3 of s
Written by: R. Flynn Date: \'1A \1, h 'v Reviewed by: i G. Corcoran Date: \t l,b\12
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells 5A Project/ SC0634 Task
and 5B Proposal No.: No.:
Area of a circle:
Where A is the area of the circle (based on tire pressure and tire load, Attachment E)
and D is the diameter of the circle. Rearranging and solving for D:
D = 2 {A= 2~SOin' =8.0 in v; 3.14
Therefore a circle with a 8.0-in. diameter has an area approximately equal to the contact
area of one vehicle wheel (50-in2).
Next, the distance between wheels on the axle must be incorporated into the design
method. The length between the back two wheels on a pick-up truck is utilized to
determine the equivalent forklift axle wheel spacing. This distance was assumed to be
60-in.
The equivalent wheel base, equivalent contact circle diameter, and the D/k value are
then utilized to determine the basic bending moment in the slab (in-lb/in) that results per
kip of wheel load applied. From Figure A2.2.2 (Attachment C), we see that the basic
bending moment due to the two wheels is 200 plus 5 in-lb/in/kip, which results in a total
moment of approximately 205 in-lb/in per kip stress. This value is multiplied by the
"wheel" load to give the design moment. Based on a total vehicle operating weight of
10,000 lbs. The wheel load is:
11 Wheel load"= Total axle weight = 8,000 lbs = 4,000 lbs = 4.0 kip
# of wheels 2 wheel wheel
SC0634.SpillwayConcrete5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
GeosyntecD
consultants
Page 4 of 5
Written by: R. Flynn Date: \1,\ \ '6\ \'l.l Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,-i\ 1BI 11.
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA Project/ SC0634 Task
and SB Proposal No.: No.:
Multiplying the basic moment by the "wheel load", the resulting design moment is:
Design moment = basic moment x wheel load = 205 i~ x (4.0 kip)= 820 in~ lb
[
in-lb ]
kip m
This design moment and the total allowable flexural stress are utilized to assess if the
initial guess for slab thickness is valid. The total allowable flexural stress is the MOR
if,.) divided by a safety factor (SF). For concentrated loads, ACI 360 recommends a SF
value between 1.7 and 2.0. For this design, the lower value of 1.7 will be utilized. The
1. 7 SF value results in a total allowable tensile stress of:
MOR= 4Ilpsi = 242 psi
SF 1.7
Using this MOR/SF value and the design stress with Figure A2.2.3 (Attachment D), we
check to see if our initial concrete thickness guess was accurate. With the values
calculated above, we see that the resulting thickness is approximately 5 in. The
calculations and resulting values are summarized in a spreadsheet, presented on
Attachment E.
Temperature & Shrinkage Reinforcement Design
The subgrade drag equation (ACI 360) is used to determine the minimum area of steel
reinforcement required to prevent temperature and shrinkage cracking:
A __ F_·_L_· w_
.•,min -2 . ./"
.I.,
Where the variables are defined as follows:
As.min = minimum cross-sectional area of steel per foot width concrete
F = sub grade friction factor, for granular subbase = 1.5 (Section 6.3))
SC0634.SpillwayConcrete5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec '>
consultants
Page 5 of 5
Written by: R.Fl:!:'.nn Date: \ l,, \ \ 't>\ \V Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA Project/ SC0634
and SB Proposal No.:
L = distance between joints in slab = 15 ft
w = dead weight of slab, 12.5 lbper inch of6-in. slab= 75 lbs
fy = yield strength of reinforcement steel, ASTM A610 = 60,000 psi
ls= allowable tensile strength of reinforcement ( 75fy) = 45,000 psi
Substitution of variables in the preceding equation yields:
A = (1.5)·(15ft).(751b) =O.Ol 9 in2 /ft
s,min (2)· (45,000 psi)
Date: ,i(,sln ..
Task
No.:
The result indicates that a minimum reinforcement area of 0.019-in2 must be provided
per each foot of slab length and width. This value is lower than the As value provided
by the narrowest rebar (#3) at the maximum recommended spacing (18-in.), which
provides an As value of 0.073-in (By ACI 318 standards, reinforcement spacing must
not exceed 18-in. or the lesser of three times the slab thickness ( also 18-in. ). According
to the WRI Manual of Standard Practice (WRI Manual), if welded reinforcement wire
(WWR) were to be utilized, the product size denoted as 6x6 -Wl.4xWl.4 would
provide an As value of 0.028-in2 (Attachment F). This value slightly exceeds the
required As,min value of0.019-in2, and requires considerably less steel than the minimum
value provided ifrebar were to be used. The WWR 6x6-Wl.4xWl.4 will be utilized.
The development length of the reinforcement steel must be checked to determine
whether or not the steel has a chance to fully develop its tensile strength. According to
Table 7 of the WRI Manual (Attachment G), the typical minimum development length
for 6x6 -Wl.4xW1.4 WWR is 8 inches.
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute, Design of Slabs on Grade (AC! 360R-92), ACI:
Farmington Hills, Michigan 1997.
Wire Reinforcement Institute, Incorporated, Manual of Standard Practice: Structural
Welded Wire Reinforcement, WWR-500, 61h Edition, 2001
SC0634.Spi11wayConcrete5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
360R•12 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
(A) 2 3 A s 6 1 a 9 10 1s 20 25 30 ~ 50 ao 10 ao 90
FORNIA BEARING RATIO ·cw' PERCEm I I
(B) 50 100 150 200 AOO 500 600 700 800 900 1 <XX> 1100 1200
315) MODIFIED MODULUS Of SOIL RUCTION ·K1f LIS./ IN.3 (12' DIAM. P\ATc)
I I I I
(C) 2S 50 75 100 50 200 2.50 300 ~ 450 500 S50 600
ANOARO MODULUS Of SOil REACTION "K', l!S. / IN.3 (30' DIAM. P1Ali)
I
(D) G • GIA\lil
$•SA.NO
M•SILT
C•aAY
W • WEll GlADED
P • P'OORt.Y ~D
U • UNIFORM!. Y GRADED
L • LOW TO MEDIUM COMJli£SSIIIUTY
H • HIGH COMPWSIBIUTY
O·ORG~IC
Ol
MH
Cl
ML
I I I.
SC
SP
CJ
r2?.a
I I
GM
GP
GU
LEGEND
COMPACltD OENSmE.5
I I I I
HA TURAl. DENSITIES
I I I I
Fig. 3.3.5-lnterrelarionship of soil classifications and strengths (from Reference 23)
sand or gravel fill, or use the existing material in its in-
situ condition.
Normally there is a wide range of soils across the
site. The soil support system is rarely uniform. Therefore,
some soil work is generally required to provide a more
uniform surface to support the slab. The extent of this
work, such as the degree of compaction or the addition
of a sand-gravel base, is generally a problem of econom-
ics. Selection of soils in the weUgraded gravel (GW) and
poorly graded gravel (GP) groups as a base material may
appear costly. However, the selection of these materials
bas distinct advantages. Not only do they provide a su-
perior modulus of subgrade reaction, but they also tend
to speed construction during inclement weather.
3.4.2 Economics and simplifi~d design-Certainly not
all projects will require all of the data discussed above.
On projects where the slab performance is not critical,
engineering judgement should be exercised to reduce
coslS. A prime prerequisite !or the proper design of a
slab support system is soils identification. Without this
knowledge, the modulus of subgrade reaction is unknown
and potential volume change cannot be determined. With
knowledge of soil classification, the engineer can select
an appropriate k value and design for the specific soil
conditions.
For small proji;cts, it may be advantageous to assume
a low k factor and add a selected thickness of crushed
stone to enhance the safety factor rather than performing
an expensive soil analysis. Use of the modified modulus
of subgrade reaction test rather than the standard modu-
lus test can also reduce costs. Risk of slab failure at an
earlier age increases as the design is rationalized but
there are occasions where the simplified design approach
is justified. These decisions are a mailer of engineering
judgment and economics.
Compounding safety factors is a common error. In-
clusion of safety factors in the modulus of subgrade re-
action, the applied loads, the compressive strength of the
concrete, the flexural strength of the concrete and the
number of load repetitions will produce an expensive
design. The safety factor is nonnall containea in the
flexural streo t o t e concrete and is a function of t e
number o[ load rcpcJitioa§ .(see Sec. 4.9). -3.5-Sitt preparation
3.5.1 Introduction-Prior to soil compaction, the top
DESIGN OF SLABS ON GRADE
CHAPTER A2-S1.AB THICKNESS
DESIGN BY WRl :M:ETHOD
A2.1-lntroduction
Toe following two examples show the determination
of thickness for a slab on grade intended to have mild
steel reinforcement for shrinkage and temperature
stresses. Toe amount of steel is commonly selected using
the subgrade drag theory presented in Chapter 6 and dis-
cussed in Reference 53.
The design charts are for a single a.'tle loading with
two sinale wheels and for the controlling moment in an Cl
aisle with uniform loading on either side. The first sit-
uation is controlled by tension on the bottom of the slab
and the second is controlled by tension on the top of the
slab. Both procedures start with use of a relative stiffness
term D/k, and require the initial assumption of the con-
crete modulus of elasticity E and slab thickness H, as well
as selecting the allowable tensile unit stress and the ap-
propriate subgrade modulus k.
A.2.2-\VRI thickness selection fol" single-axle wheel load
This procedure selects the concrete slab thickness for
a single axle with wheels at each end of the axle, using
Fig. A2.2.l, A2.2.2, and A2.2.3. The procedure starts with
Fig. A2.2.1 where a concrete modulus of elasticity£ and
slab thickness H, and modulus of subgrade reaction k are
assumed or kno\lm. For example, taking
lJmnpi,o:
SU, '11,a,,n, • 7..1 I\
ea......1c • lS I la'
•• llll
-.D.·lo..!1 t
E = 3000 ksi
Thickness = 8 in. (trial value)
Subgrade modulus k = 400 pci
Fig. A.2.2.1 fives the relative stiffness parameter D!k =
3.4 x 105 in. The procedure then uses ·Fig. A2.2.2.
Wheel Contact Area = 28 sq in.
Diameter of equivalent circle = J[28.x4]/n
= 6 in.
Wheel spacing = 45 in.
This gives the basic bending moment of 265 in.-lb{m. of
width/kip of wheel load for the wheel load using the
larger design chart in Fig. A2.2.2. The smaller chart in
the figure gives the additional moment due to the other
wheel as 16 in.-lb per in. of width per l<lp of wheel load.
Moment = 265 + 16 = _m in.-lbfm./kip
(Note that in.-lb{m. = ft-lb/ft)
Axle Load = 14.6 kips
Wheel Load = 7.3 kips
Desian Moment = 281 X 7.3 = 2051 ft-lb/ft :, ~
Then from Fig. A2.2.3:
Allowable tellSile stress= 190 psi
IICI al ~lllllltOIOICIJ
JI 1vlr1,' k
fig. A2.2.J-Subgrade and slab stiff11e.ss relationship, wed with WR] design procedure
'I
'•
. .I
•
360R-46 ACI COMMITTEE REPORT
c:. -.,,,,. -u .t:= .5 u C: .. C, Q
g
... ..,
..::,
N = 0
:c 0 0
:
'E C, E C E
420
"'00
380
360
340
uo
300
Influence of other
loaded wheel
7'" ~o 11n 100
Distance between centers
of load wheels, inches
:5 I & Ot------!-1!----11--f---~-..:"',,.----~..::,..,ro-__ -i-:::......,.-----i
1•0 I
1'. IZC
100 .l
0 •
0 8 10 zc JO
Equivalent loaded diameter. inches
Dia:nete r • 6. D
Fig. A2.2.2-Whu/ loading design chart used with T¥RI procedure
Solution:
Slab thickness (H) = 7 7/8 in.
IC the design thickness differs substantially from the
assumed thickness, the procedure is repeated with a new
assumption of thickness.
A2.J--WRI thickness selection for aisle moment due to
uniform loadiog
The procedure for the check of tensile stress in the
&op of the concrete slab due to this loading uses Fig.
A2.2.1 and A2.3. Note that Fig. A2.2.3 is a part of Fig.
A2.3., separated here for clarity or procedure.
The procedure starts as before with determination of
the term D/k = 3.4 x 105 in.4 It tbeo goes to Fig. A2.3 as
follows:
Aisle width = 10 ft = 120 in.
Uniform load = 2500 psf = 2.5 ksr
Allowable 1cosioo =MOR/SF= 190 psi
The solution is found by plotting up from the aisle
width to D/k, then to the right-hand plot edge, then down
through tbe uniform load value to the left-band edge or
the next plot, then horizontally to the allow-able s1.ress
and dowo to the design thickness.
Solution: Thickness = 8.0 in.
Again, if the design thickness differs substantially
from the assumed value, the process should be repeated
until reasonable agreement is obtained.
Al.4-Comments
These procedures assume the use of coaventio11aJ
steel reinforcement in the concrete slab. The applied
moments Crom the loads are not used in selecting the
steel reinforcement except in the case or a Type F
s1ruc1urally reinforced slab.
-'
-~ .... .:;
0 U 0 C: ~-........... "' ..... "'Cl "'Cl C: c:~ :, ::, ....
0 0 0 c.. 0.. 0 ~ .... .:; ......
DU 111 D C: "C
~-C: -~::, C _. Cl.
LI'> 0 .... N C
N ~
:c '-~ r ::c
0,
C:
"C C: ..,
C:
..:,
"' ~ Vl
E ::,
E
10,000 9poo
11,000
1,000,
6,000
-s~oo .... .. ,oo'o
3,000
2.,00"·
1,500
1,000
900 aoo
700
600
500
.. 00
DESIGN OF SL.ABS ON GRACE
HOR/Sf• 190 psi
I /'
I / . ., -....
I/ V ~ . ~
/ I/ ~
~~/v V / .. / .,
-~ L{ .,p [7 J ....... --, __ ... _
l( vf V ~ v"' -------/ ,,.
~ ~I Vr Iv ,o2/ v v
r"I v ...,,
/ v, :1 ~ J V *'°/ • J ....
~ lfl 14 ' t/ V l/ ) it I/
I I I I LI / \I ,I .,
I•' /
I .IX ,;
I II 1V I
~ V ,,I I~ . , .. :9 ~,; ~. s1ab
10 12 ·~ '' 10
thick.ness, inches
H : 7 7 /B"
Fig. A2.2.3-Slab tensile stress charts used with WRI design procedure
300 I/ 1.0
I
V
J
I , ' I .--0/k : 3.4
)00
I 1/ ~
0
...,, Uni form Load 2500 / v" : .. 0 / /-1-1/ Uniform
/ V load, le.sf
360R-47
psf = 2.5 ksf
=
70
IC ,oo
,poo .. V V l.o/K V l....-/A1low .Tension • 190 PS
~ tpoo
E 0 E
J:J a:, ~00 -;; 0
'ij
o •.ao
""'
0
5.,000
0
Q
0
0
C
l/ ---
-
'r-,..... ..._
' ~
' r,...,' r--........ .
' ...........
'-r--....
c-
. ~ ·-,___ --.....
V I I v ./ ' /
I V I~
... VI
l
I L.,.-I
~ ~ -I
I
' 1,00 L--L.,.,-
•!
150 --r
I --'~o I .
',QCI
lp(J
1,00
1,110
10,00
11,000
12,00 <10 IC 10 IOO ' -tell 140 ICO ,io zoo .....,,
Aisle width, inches
Aisle Width• 10 ft• 120"
10 •
7, ...... 5 .... --.... • '
l ,..,
,.o
C,7 •
0.5 o.•
O.l
o.z
o.u
0..10
C.C7
o..os
10,000 ,; -J spoo I , -, 17 ., apoo ,,.
I T7 7 . ,, V 7/JOO .,
I .. ' ,,. V ., ~ -,~o V I / [Z rt.p ._ __
L-. --I/ 0 lA V ~ ii _..I/ ... ' I , 00 lf:l/ l1 k1v -~ , I ~ L) -1= z.coo J VJ I ~ LI V .. °/ c 1,500 I. ' ,,.
Cl ~; V llj f' V E V D ) t I I/ E ·, I/ 1,000 I I.I ~ .t::l ,oo .. I u'( 17 .; 100 J ,., I /
ci 700 • J 1. . 0 ,oo ) I Ll ""' SCIO 7 17. I 400 •
• '~ .. 0
M
Slab thickness, inches
.. e·
Fig. A2.3-Uniform lead de.sign and slab rensile stress chart.s wed with WR! design procedure
--J
-.. v
.,v I,.,
II I 0
Slab Design Thickness Determination
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial 3
Wheel spacing = 60 60 60 in
Total working vehicle weight= 12,000 12,000 12,000 lb
Rear Axle Load = 8,000 8,000 8,00.0 lb
...__ -~ -· .... ··-· A l "Axle" load= rt··--:-> · ,~:· ·v_ .>' k"1p
"Wheel" load= ~: Cii = :".:_;.;;:·,~~:,.;..kip
Whee/ nre Pressure = 80.0 80.0
Wheel Contact area =
Wheel Equivalent Diameter= ~~l·~_..~'";-.:a-:~f@;O;, '·~"i!in
Concrete modulus (E) = 3,500 3,500 3,500 ksl
Compressive strength of concrete (re) = 3,000 3,500 4,000 psi
Subgrade Modulus (k) = 400 400 400 pci
Concrete Modulus of Rupture (MOR, f,) = ~1't£~~j~-1;7N 1
-psi
SafetyFactor(SF)= 1.7 1.7 1.7
Allowable tensile stress (MOR/SF) = • ":~~..;.:;T ~f .. 't~if"" psi
WRI Method -Single Axle Wheel Load
Trial
Units 1 2 3
TrialThickness = in 6.0 6.0 6.0
Stiffness parameter (D/k) = x10..sin4 1.5 1.5 1.5
Basic bending moment per kip stress = in-lb/in/kip 200 200 ·200
Moment due to other wheel = in-lb/in/kip 5 5 5
Total moment per kip stress= in-lb/in/kip -~,Jt~ ~}2_~-:: ~~5!:"~
Design moment -in-lb/in '(.g-~:.f}': ;, '··";};_{If~~ -· -~ .... ~,
SLAB THICKNESS = in 5.0 4.5 4.5
*Highlighted values are calculated from other entered values.
6-in. is an acceptable design slab thickness.
*distance between wheels on same axle
Assume Pick-up Truck Loading
Assume Pick-up Truck Loading
rear axle
half of axle load
80 to 120 psi for pneumatic tires
Fig 3.3.5
(from Fig A2.2.1)
(from Fig A2.2.2)
(from Fig A2.2.2)
11 (from Fig. A2.2.3)
ATTACHMENT E
Slab Design Thickness Determination
Trial 1 Trial 2 Trial3
Wheel spacing = 72 72 72 in
Total working vehicle weight= 12,000 12,000 12,000 lb
Rear Axle Load = 8,000 8,000 8,000 lb
"Axle" load= ..... """&fa'" ·sat"" -· a!'o;~ kip
,1> ,~
"Wheel" load = 4t0 _,_ J,O kip
Wheel Tire Pressure = 80.0 80.0 80.0 psi
Wheel Contact area = ,50:0 so:o -·:-solo sqin
f':"\,, • -----:Sr'ff" 8:0~ Wheel Equivalent Diameter = .. s:o. in
Concrete modulus (E) = 3,500 3,500 3,500 ksi
Compressive strength of concrete (fc) = 3,000 3,500 4,000 psi
Subgrade Modulus (k) = 400 400 400 pci
Concrete Modulus of Rupture (MOR, fr)= ar -,.¥,1 -4_4J_ :-,47_4 -= psi
Safety Factor (SF)= 1.7 1.7 1.7
Allowable tensile stress (MOR/SF) = n _ "'i~ ..... t '2§;1 ~ ·"~79~ psi
WRI Method -Single Axle Wheel Load
Trial
Units 1 2 3
Trial Thickness= in 6.0 6.0 6.0
Stiffness parameter (Olk) == X 10-<> in4 1.5 1.5 1.5
Basic bending moment per kip stress = in-lb/in/kip 200 200 200
Moment due to other wheel = in-lb/in/kip 5 5 5
Total moment per kip stress= in-lb/in/kip '" ,205 205 205_ -,,
Design moment = in-lb/in 820 •a2r ""'°82G?
SLAB THICKNESS = in 5.0 4.5 4.5
*Highlighted values are e;atculated from other entered values.
6-in. is an acceptable design slab thickness.
*distance between wheels on same axle
Assume Pick-up Truck Loading
Assume Pick-up Truck Loading
rear axle
half of axle load
80 to 120 psi for pneumatic tires
Fig 3.3.5
(from Fig A2.2.1)
(from Fig A2.2.2)
(from Fig A2.2.2)
(from Fig. A2.2.3)
ATTACHMENT E
Sectional Areas of Welded Wire Reinforcement
TABLE 5 Customary Units
Wire Nominal Nominal
Size Number Diameter Weight
Plain Deformed Inches Lbs./Lin. Ft. 2" 3"
W45 D45 0.757 1.530 2.70 1.80
W31 D31 0.628 1.054 1.86 1.24
W20 D20 0.505 .680 1.20 .80
W18 D18 0.479 .612 1.08 .72
W16 D16 0.451 .544 .96 .64
W14 D14 0.422 .476 .84· .56
W12 012 0.391 .408 .72 .48
W11 011 0.374 .374 .66 .44
W10.5 0.366 .357 .63 .42
W10 D10 0.357 .340 .60 .40
W9.5 0.348 .323 .57 .38
W9 D9 0.338 .306 .54 .36
W8.5 0.329 .289 .51 .34
W8 08 0.319 .272 .48 .32
W7.5 0.309 .255 .45 .30
W7 D7 0.299 .238 .42 .28
W6.5 0.288 .221 .39 .26
W6 D6 0.276 .204 .36 .24
W5.5 0.265 .187 .33 .22
W5 D5 0.252 .170 .30 .20
W4.5 0.239 .153 .27 .18
W4 D4 0.226 .136 .24 .16
W3.5 0.211 .119 .21 .14
W3 0.195 .102 .18 .12
W2.9 0.192 .098 .174 .116
W2.5 0.178 .085 .15 .10
W2.1 0.161 .070 .13 .084
W2 0.160 .068 .12 .08
W1.4 0.134 .049 .084 .056
Design Aids 6
As -Square Inch Per Linear Feet
Center to Center Spacing
4" 6" 8" 10" 12" 16" 18"
1.35 .909 .68 .54 .45 .34 .30
.93 .62 .47 .37 .31 .23 .21
.60 .40 .30 .24 .20 .15 .13
.54 .36 .27 .216 .18 .14 .12
.48 .32 .24 .192 .16 .12 .11
.42 .28 .21 .168 .14 .11 .09
.36 .24 .18 .144 .12 .09 .08
.33 .22 .165 .132 .11 .08 .07
.315 .21 .157 .126 .105 .08 .07
.30 .20 .15 .12 .10 .08 .07
.285 .19 .142 ,114 .095 .07 .06
.27 . 18 .135 .108 .09 .07 .06
.255 .17 .127 .102 .085 .06 .06
.24 .16 .12 .096 .08 .06 .05
.225 .15 .112 .09 .075 .056 .95
.21 .14 .105 .084 .07 .053 .047
.195 .13 .097 .078 .065 .048 .043
.18 .12 .09 .072 .06 .045 .04
.165 .11 .082 .066 .055 .041 .037
.15 .10 .075 .06 .05 .038 .033
.135 .09 .067 .054 .045 .034 .03
.12 .08 .06 .048 .04 .03 .027
.105 .07 .052 .042 .035 .026 .023
.09 .06 .045 .036 .03 .023 .02
.087 .058 .043 .035 .029 .022 .019
.075 .05 .037 .03 .025 .019 .017
.063 .042 .032 .025 .021 .016 .014
.06 .04 .03 .024 .02 .015 .013
.042 .028 .028 .017 .014 .011 .009
Note: For other available wire sizes other than those listed, contact your nearest WWR manufacturer.
•. 1 19
TABLE 7 Customary Units (In.)
Welded Plain Wire Reinforcement Typical Development and Splice Lengths, inches
f y = 60,000 psi f' c = 4,000 psi
2"mln. Splice length-plain reinforcement t i C~lo·
I• '"I
.....:
e I > WIRES TO BE • ... ~
/ section
>-
DEVELOPED OR I• "I f. d or 6" min. 1.5 (calculated l!d), SPLICED or 1 space + 2" or 6" min.
Development length when Splice length when
cross-wire spacing is: cross-wire spacing is:
Wire Sw, spacing
Size in. 4" 6" 8" 12" 4" 6" 8" 12"
W1.4 4 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
to 6 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
W5 12 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
W6 6 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
12 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 6 8 10 14 7 8 10 14
W7 6 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
12 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 6 8 10 14 8 8 10 14 wa 6 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
12 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 6 8 10 14 9 10 10 14
W9 6 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
12 6 8 10 14 6 a 10 14
4 7 8 10 14 10 10 10 14
W10 6 6 8 10 14 7 a 10 14
12 6 a 10 14 6 a 10 14
4 a 8 10 14 12 12 12 14
W12 6 6 a 10 14 a 8 10 14
12 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 9 9 10 14 14 14 14 14
W14 6 6 8 10 14 9 9 10 14
12 6 a 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 11 11 11 14 16 16 16 16
W16 6 7 8 10 14 11 11 11 14
12 6 a 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 12 12 12 14 18 18 18 18 W18 6 8 8 10 14 12 12 12 14
12 6 8 10 14 6 8 10 14
4 13 13 13 14 20 20 20 20
W20 6 9 9 10 14 13 13 13 14
12 6 8 10 14 8 8 10 14
4 20 20 20 20 30 30 30 30
W31 6 14 14 14 14 20 20 20 20
12 7 8 10 14 10 10 10 14
4 29 29 29 29 44 44 44 44
W45 6 19 19 19 19 29 29 29 29
12 10 10 10 10 15 15 15 15
23
Geosyntect>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project/
Client: _E=F"---Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB Proposal No.: SC0634
Task No. 02
Title of Computations GEOMEMBRANE TENSION DUE TO WIND UPLIFT
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Signature
Title
Signature~
Printed Nam K.eatonBotelho,P.E.
Title Project Engineer
Computations
Checked by:
Signature ~
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
Printed Name Keaton Botelho, P .E.
Title Project Engineer
Title
Si nature
Printed Name
Title
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By
SC0634.WindUplift5A-5B.20121210.F.calc.docx
Checked by
Date
12 /;,.,a /1.> .. Dale
Date
Date
Approval
Geosyntect>
consultants
Written by:
Client: EF
Page 1
R. Fll'.DD Date: 11/12/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date:
Project: Cells SA and SB Project/ SC0634 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
GEOMEMBRANE TENSION DUE TO WIND UPLIFT
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
OBJECTIVE
of 5
,d~\,i
02
The project includes the installation of a triple liner system within Cells 5A and 5B at
the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. Both Cells will have the same proposed liner
system as shown in Attachment A. The objective of this calculation is to evaluate
tension in the primary geomembrane on the exposed side slopes due to wind uplift. Two
conditions are evaluated: the interim condition and the final condition. The interim
condition corresponds to the construction period when the geomembranes may be
secured within the anchor trench with a partial backfill until all layers are placed and
secured in the final anchor trench.
The input variables, slope length, liner type, elevation, etc, which create the greatest
tension in the geomembrane was evaluated in the design of both Cells 5A and SB. The
method outlined by Giroud, et al (1995) will be employed herein. Tension generated by
wind uplift will be used to design the anchor trench capacity (see companion calculation
package titled, Evaluation of Liner System Anchor Trench Capacity)
SITE CONDITIONS
The side slope liner system considered in the wind uplift calculation consists (from top
to bottom) of:
• 60-mil (1.5 mm) HDPE geomembrane;
• 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner™ geomembrane;
• 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner™ geomembrane; and
• Prepared subgrade.
The capacity of the anchor trench is determined in a separate calculation package.
SC0634.WindUplift5A-5B.20121210.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 2 of 5
Written by: R.Fl:ynn Date: 11/12/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1tj~1t
Client: EF Project: Cells 5A and 5B Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Proposal No.: No.:
ANALYSIS
The analysis will follow the method outlined by Giroud, et al., in "Uplift of
Geomembrane by Wind" (Attachment B). Giraud et al. offer the following equation for
estimating the effective suction on a geomembrane (Attachment B):
Se= 0.05011, V2 e-[1.252xw-4
~ -9.81µGM
where: Se = effective suction (Pa)
A = suction factor (dimensionless)
V = wind velocity (km/h)
z = altitude above sea level (m)
(Attachment B, 1/6)
µGM = mass per unit area of geomembrane (kg/m2)
Evaluate Variables
Interim Conditions Final Conditions
A Suction factor = 0.70 for the
entire side slope being considered
(Attachment B, page 2)
A Suction factor = 0. 70 for the entire
V
z
75% of Maximum Wind Speed = V
25 x 0.75 mph= 30.2 km/h (IUC,
2003, see Attachment C) 1
altitude above sea level (m)
A minimum elevation for the base
side slopes 1s approximately
5,542 ft = 1689 meters (Cell SB
bottom elevation)
z
µGM mass per unit area of µGM
geomembrane (kg/m2)
µGM = 1.41 kg/m2 (Attachment B,
page 3/6)
SC0634.WindUpliftSA-SB.20121210.F.calc.docx
side slope being considered
(Attachment B, page 2)
maximum wind velocity = 25 mph
= 40.2 km/h (IUC, 2003, see
Attachment C)
altitude above sea level (m)
A minimum elevation for the base
side slopes is approximately 5,542 ft
= 1689 meters (Cell SB bottom
elevation)
mass per unit area of geomembrane
(kg/m2)
µoM = 1.41 kg/m2 (Attachment B,
page 3/6)
Written by: R.Fl3'.DD Date: 11/12/12
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and 5B
Evaluate Suction
Se= 0.050(0.70)(30.2)2e-C1.2s2x10-•)16B9 _
9.81(1.41)
s. = 12.0 Pa
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 3 of 5
Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: til1~hi
Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Proposal No.: No.:
Se= 0.050(0.70)(40.2)Ze-(1.252x10-•)1689 _
9.81(1.41)
Se= 31.9 Pa
The maximum height of the exposed slope (2H:1V) is approximately 46 vertical feet, so
the total length of exposed slope, L, isL=~462 +(2(46))2 =103ft=3lm(see
Attachment A for the conceptual base grading plan). Therefore the resultant force of
the applied effective suction becomes:
Interim Condition Final Condition
N lkN =0.37 kN N lkN =0.99kN SeL = 12.0-2 (31 m) x SeL = 31.9-2 (31 m) X m 1000N m m IOOON m
EVALUATION OF TENSION IN GEOMEMBRANE
Geomembrane Properties
The geomembrane properties needed for the calculations herein are tensile stiffness and
strain. These values are chosen from manufacturer data for 60-mil HDPE smooth
geomembrane (Attachment D). The tensile strength and elongation at yield for a 60-
mil, smooth HDPE geomembrane are 132 ppi (23.1 kN/m) and 13%, respectively
(Attachment D).
The objective of this analysis is to evaluate wind induced tension in the geomembrane.
Tension and strain in the geomembrane are linked by the following relationship, which
is applicable to the initial portion of the tension-strain curve of the geomembrane which
has been assumed to be linear:
SC0634.WindUpliftSA-SB.20121210.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec 0
consultants
Page 4 of s
Written by: R,Fl)'.!!n Dllte: 11112/12 Reviewed by.: .G. Corcornn Dntc: \ i~ 6\ \1.
Client: EF' Project: Cells SA and SB
T = fa (Attachment B, page 5)
where: T -Tension
J = Stiffness
& = Strain
Project/ SC0634
Proposal No.:
T0 evaluate tension. we need to first evaluate stiffuess and strain.
Stiffness, J
The tensile stiffne~s is given by:
J =EtaM
where.: B = Elastic Modulus
Tas~ 02
No.:
-450 MPa, .this modulus value corresponds to wide-width
tensi'on values'" according to Koerner (I 998, Attachment
E)
1°-0M = Geomembrane Thickness
= 1.5 X lff3 m (60 mil)
Therefore:
J = (450 MP~)(O;OOl S tn) = 67 5 kN/m
Strain,.s
The strain on the geotneinbrane induced by wind uplift loading can be estimated using
Table 4 (Attachment B, 6/6):
SC0634;WlndUpliftSA-SB,201212·1 O.F.calc-doell
Geosyntecf>
consultants
Page 5 of 5
Written by: R. Fll:'.nn Date: 11/12/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: l 2,~\tki.
Client: EF Project: Cells 5A and 5B Project/ SC0634 Task 02
ProEosal No.: No.:
Interim Condition Final Condition
_J_ = 67 5 = 1824
SeL 0.37 ' and from Table 4 _J_ = 675 = 682
SeL 0.99 ' and from Table 4
(Attachment B, pg. 6), E = 0.24% (Attachment B, pg. 6), E = 0.46%
Therefore, the tension in the geomembrane is:
Interim Condition Final Condition
kN kN T ==fa= 675-(0.0024) = 1.62-kN kN T= JE =675-(0.0046)=3.ll-m m m m
=9.2ppi = 17.7ppi
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the calculation performed herein, the geomembrane is acceptable for a wind
speed of 18.75 mph (75% of 25 mph) for the interim condition and 25 mph for the final
condition, both with a slope length of approximately 103 ft (31 m). The tension in the
geomembrane under the design conditions is 9.2 ppi (interim) and 17. 7 ppi (final).
The capacity of the anchor trench is determined in a separate calculation package.
REFERENCES
Giroud, J.P., Pelte., Bathurst, R.J. 1995. Uplift ofGeomembranes by Wind,
Geosynthetic International, Vol. 2, No. 6, pg. 897-952. (Attachment BJ
International Uranium (USA) Corporation (IUC). 2003. Environmental Report. June
20, 2003, page 3-3. (Attachment CJ
Geosynthetic Research Institute. 2003. GRI Test Method GM13, Standard
Specification for "Test Properties, Testing Frequency and Recommended
Warranty for High Density Polyethylene (HOPE) Smooth and Textured
Geomembranes." Revision 5: May 15, 2003. (Attachment DJ
Koerner, R.M. 1998. Designing with Geosynthetics, 4th Edition. Prentice-Hall: Upper
Saddle River, NJ. (Attachment EJ
SC0634.WindUplift5A-5B.201212l0.F.calc.docx
300MLGEOET
60Ma.HOPE
GEOMEMBRANE, CRAIN
LNER
~ -~ ,,_:~.......», ·,{ ~ _.'.~ . : ' D'"='U ~ '~ *~ ~~'' ~ ~-'
-DETAIL 9 •1 ~
" ' 10 DETAIL
03A.038,04A.048 BASE LINER SYSTEM 03A,038,04A,04B SIDE SLOPE LINER SYSTEM
;
i I
l • ! !
' I
l'w~
i i.,.""'
I 0
PJ 11.i1
• II ·~
,.
""'
SCALE 1"=2' IO!r&,l.1• .. :,
/11.HJIIUI.IOI_WTI4~
,,
CONCRETE PIPE fig\
SUPPORT w
12
04A.04B
DETAIL
SECONDARY LEAK DETECTION
RISER PENETRATION SCALE 1"•2'
IJ.aC_~\'atH:()ot,JI
"") (~
CONCRETEPIPE~
SUPPORT @
14
04A,04B
DETAIL
SLIMES DRAIN RISER
PENETRATION
~c1·11,1,,.,mc,,~,.,i:~~oi;a.cn=-e~·:1·:r::L"'I
ttear&OIII:
TOEOFSl.OPE
~ "' ,, .......
(NOTE~)
~
11A'
03A.038.04A..04B.05.06.09
60MILl<PE GEOMEMeRANE • SYOOTH r----17=-., ........
GeOMEMaRAIIIE -SMOOTH
I O~N)
.~ l"°L'----;;:,.~~~· -~~5~~ ~ ~:,,.~·1' ~ ~ ,., ~
DETAIL
ANCHOR TRENCH
SCALE 1"=2
Jf<I' ANCHOR 00I. TS FOR TIE o:::MN STRAPS
a:NCRETE PIPE~ ~T@
13
04A.04B
DETAIL
PRIMARY LEAK DETECTION
SYSTEM RISER PENETRATION
SCALE 1•:2
"' ,, I .-.,;, ~ ~alll!FU.G ~---l"'-~~·,,....,.~:LL
~ el 03A.( -
!<EO,a.0'£
DETAIL
ACCESS ROAD & ANCI-IOR TRENCH ll!Clti:.!: .... ~
-1 DETALS-'RE SHO,\fll TO SCALE l~T8l EXCEPT FOR THE GEOSYNTHETICS '1-.HICH ARE SH()W.j AT AN EXAGGEAATEO SCALE FOR Q.ARITY
2 ANCHOR TREN0£S MAY BE CONSTRUCTIDWTHA MAXIMUM
CF:PTH OF 3 5 FEET 'MTH UP 10 1 FOOT OF BACKALL 0E1"EEN
9Cl1otCWE.I.MU.flf.C,m,M~llO<lli~
3 PREPAREOSlJBGF!AOEAT CtLl BASE SHALLOONSISTOF AT LEAST 6 INO,ES OF FILL OVERLYING 86.NDSTONE IN ACCORDANCE 11.ms SECTIONS 022CO ANO 02220 OF THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS ALL LOOSE (8L.AST8l OR RIPPED) SOIL AND Ro:;,< Sl-'ALL BE REMOVED TO EXPOSE Cm.'IPETENT SOIL/ ROCK PRIOR TO PL.ACING ENGINEERING FILL
[Attachment A
~ (~~I :::= • • -e."UIT\J-OU
L L~--l '\ /' ... .,. -,-
Geosyntecl>
ron,ul1a,o1,
llffli'!W0111)---,.a,m;::n, -Dl!DO.C4«21l7 PHON[:--~
-eF
15
l>7,oa
DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE
SCA.l.E1"•1'
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
l>i!S-.._YMCltll-
,;ot1,nucroa ... ~-lQ
-.-.,-
LINER SYSTEM DETAILS I
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND SB
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
-=
SOJO>< ..,,.,.,..,
_QL,.-1.Q_
GIROUD, PELTE AND BATHURST • Uplift of Geomembranes by Wind
• At altitude z above sea level:
s. = 0.646S). V2e-u.m x •0-41= -9.81µGM
with s.(Pa), V(m/s), z{m), µG,.,(kg/m2)
(40)
.. :\ti·
(41)
with S,{Pa), V{km/h), z{m), µaM(kg/m2)
3.3 Determination of Geomembrane Tension and Strain
According lo Equation 36, the effective suction results from hvo components: a com-
ponent due to the wind-generated suction, which is nonnal to the geomembrane; and
a compooenc due to the geomembrnne mass per unit area, which is not normal to the
geemembrane. The component due to the geomembrane mnss per unit aren is general!}'
smnll compared to the component due to the wind-generated suction. Therefore, the ef-
fecttve suction is essentially nonnal to the geomembrane. Since the effective suction
is taken as nonnal to the geomembrane and has been assumed to be uniformly distrib-
uted over the length L of geomembrane, and since the problem is considered to be two-
dimensional (see Section 3.2.2), the cross section of the uplifted geomembrane has a
circular shape (Figure 9). As a result, the resultant F of the applied effective succion is
equal to the effective suction multiplied by the length of chord AB, i.e. L:
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\
\ \
\
R
0
Figure 9. Schematic representation of uplifted geomembrane used for developing
equations.
918 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6
. ,,
,,
*
GIROUD, PELTE AND BATHURST • Uplift of Geomembr~nes by Wind
• A leeward slope experiences a suclion over its entire length. The suction on the lee-
ward slope ranges between 45% of the reference pressure variation at the toe of the
slope and 75% at the top of the slope, with an average value of 60%, i.e. 0.45 s ).
s 0.75 with an average value of0.6. ·
• Large portions of the reservoir bottom are subjected to a suction ranging between
20% and 40% of the reference pressure variation (0.2 s ). s 0.4).
The above conclusions result from modeling in a wind tunnel where the wind velocity
is constant. In reality, there are gusts of wind that may cause suctions greater than those
indicated above, in localized areas for short periods of time.
Considering the conclusions from wind tunnel ·tests presented above and the need for
extra safety due to gusts of wind, the following values of the suction factor, ,t, arc recom-
mended for design of any slope based on the critical leeward slope:
. • ). = 1.00 if the crest only is considered;
• ). = 0.70 if an entire side slope is considered;
• ;,, = 0.85 for the top third,).= 0.70 for the middle third, and ,t = 0.55 for the bottom
third for a slope decomposed in three thirds by intermediate benches or anchor
trenches as shown in Figure 7c and 7d: and
• ). = 0.40 at the bottom.
These recommendations are summarized in Figure _5. According to Equation 13, the
suction faclor, )., is 10 be multiplied by 6p11 to obtain the suction S. The reference pres-
sure variation, 6.p~ , can be calculated using Equations 7 to 11.
It should be emphasized ,that the recommendations made above and used in the re-
mainder of this paper rely entirely on 1he results of small-scal,e wind tunnei tests re·
poned by Dedrick ( 1973, 1974a, 1974b, 1975). Nevenheless, rhe tests can be deemed
representolive of most practical situations because they were carried o.ut on a wide:
range of dike cross section geometries and alignments typically associated with reser-
voir structures. However. a review or data for other shapes including obstacles with si-
nusoidal or smooth curve geometry can result in suction factors as great as .l = 1.30.
Therefore, for unusual geometries, the designer may elect to increase the values of the
suction factor,)., given in Figure 5 by up to 30%. Also, for unusual geomelrie_s or large
prqjects for which wi'nd-induced dnrnage or exposed geomembrancs may have large fi-
nancial consequences wind runnel tests of reduced-scale models or numerical simula-
tion may be warranted.
, 1.00
0.40
Figure 5. Recommended ,·alues of the suction factor for design of any slope based on the
critical leeward slope.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6 905
It
)
.· .. ;
/
GIROUD, PELTE AND BATHURST • Upllft of Geomembra·~es by Wind
t ·~·
Table I. Typical density, thickness and mass per unit area for geomembranes, and relation-
ship between mass per unit area and minimum uplift wind velocity.
0comcmbranc Geomembranc Geomcmbranc Minimum uplift
Type of density thickness mass per unit area wind velocity
gcomcmbranc {}Gl,I ICM µG.11{4) V.p .. l• (S)
(kg/m3) (mm} (ksfm2) (km/h}
PVC<ll 1250 o.s 0.63 II.I· (2) 1.0 1.25 IS.7
HOPE! (ll 940 1.0 0.94 13.6
I.S 1.41 16.7
2.0 1.88 19.2
2.5 2.3S 21.S
CSPE-RUI (JI 0.75 0.9 IJ.3
0.90 I.IS 15.0
I. IS I.S 17.2
E!A-R Ill ()) 0.75 1.0 14.0
1.0 1.3 16.0
Bicuminous ()) ) 3.5· 26.2 s 6 )4.J
Nou:s: (11 PVC.:: poly,,inyl chloride; HDPE = high density polyethylene: CSPE-R • chlorosulfon31ed pol~,
c1hylcnc,rcinforced (cammcrci:ilz known as Hypalon): and EIA,R = ethylene intcrpolymcr alloy,rcinforcc:J
(eommcrci3lly known :is XRS). I I PVC gcomcmbrancs hnc dcnsiticinnnging 1ypically from 1200 to 1300
kg/m J. An average value has been used In t~is ll!blc. (ll These geomcmbrnnes consist of SC\'Crnl plies of differ-
ent m:i1crfals wilh different densities. C4I The rcl.icionship between density, 1hicl.;ncs5 and mass per unit orcJ i~
expressed by Equ:11lon 16. 15) Calculated using Equarion 27 which is applicable to a gcomembra11c localed a:
sea level and subjected 10 a suction equ~l to the reference pressure ~Jri:11ion. Values tabulated in the losl column
con be found in Figure 6 on the curn for; = 0.
,,· .:µ = 00659.H'~e-ci.m K io-'1: with,, (kg/m~) V(m/s) and .:(m) (20) ·~ ~~ . ·~~ .
0 005085 I t•2 -(I 2'' X 10-4)• 'h (k / 2) ''(km/h) d ( ) (21) µG.lf 2= Jlc.11,.9 == • ,.. , c • • wit Jtc,11,..v g m • ,· · an ;;: m
Figure 6 gives the relationship between the geomembrane mass per unit area, ~lo11,
and the wind velocity, V, as a function of the altitude above sea level, z, for the case).
= 1, corresponding to the case where the geomembranc is subjected to a suction equal
to the reference pressure variation (S= 6pA ). Figure 6 shows that typical polymeric geo-
membranes, with masses per unit area ranging between 0.5 and 2 kgtm2, can resist uplift
at sea level by winds with velocities ranging between IO and 20 km/h, whereas bitumi-
nous geomembranes, with masses per unit area ranging between 3.5 and 6 kglm2, can
resist uplift at sea level by winds with velocities ranging between 25 nnd 35 km/h.
Example 1. A 1.S mm thick HDPE geomembrane is located at the bottom of a res-
ervoir. The altitude of th~ reservoir is 450 m. Would this geomembrane be uplifted by
a wind with a velocity of 30 km/h?
GEOSYNTHcTICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6 907
.. .. ,~ . -
GIROUD, PELTE ANO BATHURST • Uplift of Geomembranes by Wind
3.2.2 Mechanical Behavior of the Geomembrane
The problem is assumed to be two-dimensional. Therefore, the geomembrane Is as-
sum«d to be characterized by Its tension-strain curve measured in a tensile test that sim-
ulates plane-strain conditions. A wide-width tensile test provides a satisfactory approx-
imation of this case. If only results of a uniaxial tensile test are available, the tensile
characteristics under plane-strain conditions can be derived from the tensile character-
istics under unlaxial conditions as indicated by Soderman and Giroud ( 1995).
Essential characteristics of geomembranes for use in design arc the allowable tension,
T.11 , and strain, Eo11 • Typical tension-strain curves arc shown In Figure 8:
• If the geomembrane tension·str~in curve has a peak (Curve l), the allowable tension
and strain correspond to the values of T and t at the peak (as shown in Figure 8) or
before the peak ifa margin of safety is required.
• If the geomembrane tension-strain curve has a plateau (Curve 2), the allowable ten-
sion and strain correspond to the values of Tande at the beginning of the plateau (as
shown in Figure 8) or before ifa margin of safety is required.
• If the geomembrane tension-strain curve ha_s neither peak nor plateau (Curve 3 ), the
allowable tension and strain correspond to the values ofTand tat the end of the curve.
i.e. at break (as shown in Figure 8), or before ifa m:irgin of safety is required.
In all three cases, values of T.11 and E,11 that are less than the values given above can
be selected for any appropriate reasons (i.e. to meet regulatory requirements, to limit
dc;for,mations, etc.).
In some cases. the geomembrane tension-strain curve, or a portion of it, Is assu_med
to be linear. Then, the following relationship exists:
T
Curve 1 r;,,,
Curve2
T.11
r.,,
0 E111 Ea11 E
Figure 8. Typical tension-strain curves of geomembranes.
916 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6
. ~." ........... : .... ..
)
GIROUD, PELTE AND BATHURST • Upllft of Geomembranes by Wind
/
T=JE (34)
where: T= geomembrane tension; J= geomembrane tensile stiffness; and e = geomem-
brane strain. The case of geomembranes with a linear tension-strain curve will be fur-
ther discussed in Section 3.5.
Tt is important to note that geomembranes that are not reinforced with a fabric, for
example PVC and PE geomcmbranes, have tensile characteristics that are highly de-
pendent on temperature. Extensive data on the influence of temperature on the tensile
characteristics of HDPE geomembranes are provided by Giroud ( 1994 ). The influence
of temperature will be further discussed in Section 3.6.
3.2.3 Suction Due to Wind
In the subsequent analysis, the suction applied by the wind is assumed to be uniform
over the entire length L. In reality,.the suction due to the wind is not unifonnly distrib-
uted as shown in Figure 4. Therefore, the design engineer using the method presented
in this paper must exercise judgment in selecting the value of the length Land the value
of the ratio.,l defined by Equation 13.
In accordance with the discussions presented in Sections 2.3 and 2.4, the suction that
effectively uplifts the geomembrane is:
(35)
where Sr is the "effective suction".
Combining Equations 2. 13 and 35 gives:
(36)
Combining Equations J and J6 gives:
S, =: ).i;,.(l-·'~/2)e-o• II :fro -,ilc;,11 g (J 7)
Using the values of Q. and p,. given in Section 2.1 n.nd g = 9.81 m/s2, Equation 37
gi\·es:
• At sea level:
S, = 0.6465). V2 -9.81,u c;.1r
with S,(Pa), V(m/s), ~lc,lf(kg/m2)
S, = 0.050). v--9.8(µG,\/
with S,(Pa), V(km/h), µ0M(kg/m2)
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6
(38)
(39)
917
-·
,;/_
GIAOUD, PELTE AND BATHURST • Uplift of Geomembranes by Wind
Table 4. Relationship between the strain or the geornembrane uplifted by the wind and the
normalized tensile stiffness of the 2eomembrane for the case where the geomembrane has a
linear tension-strain curve (Equation 57).
E ...L. e _j_ r L e ..L (%) s. L {%) S.L (%) S, l (%) S,L
0 co 3.6 31.347 7.2 11.607 10.8 6.607
0.1 6463.688 3.7 30.124 7.J 11.384 10.9 6.S2S
0.2 2288.342 3.8 28.981 7.4 11.168 11.0 6.443
0.3 1247.294 3.9 27.910 7.S 10,959 I I. I 6.36S
0.4 811.232 4.0 26,905 7.6 10.757 11.2 6.291
._ 0.5 581.25 I 4.1 25.960 7.7 I0.561 11.3 6.212
i. 0.6 4-U.767 4.2 25.071 7.8 10.372 11.4 6.138
0.7 3S 1.834 4.J 24.233 7.9 10.189 11..5 6.06S -
0.8 2SS.353 4A 23.4-H 8.0 10.010 11.6 S.99~
0.9 24 l.9SJ 4.5 22.694 8.1 9.839 11.7 5.92S
1.0 206.885 4.6 21.987 8.2 9.671 11.8 S.857
I. I 179,565 4.7 21.Jl6 8.) 9.508 11.9 S.790
1.2 1S7.8~ H 20.680 8.4 9.)51 12.0 5.724
l.3 140.137 4.9 20.076 8.5 9.198 12.1 5.660
1.4 125.562 5.0 19.502 8.6 9.049 12.2 5.598
I.S 113.368 5.1 18.956 8.7 8.905 12.3 5.537
1.6 IOJ.044 5.2 18A35 8.8 8.765 12.il S.411
1.7 94.212 5.3 17.939 8.9 8.628 12.S S.418
1.8 86.586 SA 17.465 9.0 8.495 12.6 S.359
1.9 79.947 5.5 17.013 9.1 8.365 12.7 5.302
2.0 74.125 5.6 16.580 9.2 8.240 12.8 S.247
2.1 68.911 5 5.7 16.167 9.3 8.118 12.9 5.192
2.2 64.421 S.8 IS.171 9.4 7.998 IJ.O 5.138
2.J 60.3-15 5.9 15.392 9.5 7.882 13.1 5.086
2.4 56.688 6.0 IS.OZ? 9.6 7.769 13.2 S,035
2.5 53.391 6.1 14.678 9.7 7.658 13.3 4.984
2.6 S0.407 6.2 14.342 9.8 1.S51 13.4 4.934
2.7 47.696 6.J 14.020 9.9 7.446 13.S 4.885
2.8 45.22) 6.4 13.710 10.0 7.344 13.6 4.8)7
2.9 42.960 6.5 IJ.412 10.I 7.2-13 ·13.7 4.790
3.0 40.885 6.6 13.126 10.2 7.146 13.8 4.743
3.1 JS.973 6.7 12.849 I OJ 7.051 IJ.9 4.698
3.2 37.209 6.8 12.582 10.4 6.958 14.0 4.653
3.3 JS.577 6.9 12.325 10.5 6.867 14.1 4.609
3.4 34.064 7.0 12.078 10.6 6,779 14.2 4.566
3.5 32.657 7.1 11.838 10.7 6.692 14.3 4.524
934 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6
~ ·~r
)
The weather in the Blanding area is typified by warm summers and cqld wi~ters. T~e mean
annual temperature in Blanding is about 50°F (I 0°C). January is usually the coldest month and
July is usually the wannest month.
Winds are usually light to moderate in the area during all seasons, although occasional stronger
winds may occur in the late winter arid spring. The redominant winds are from the north
1through north-east (approximately 30 percent of the timel}nd from the south through south-wes
.(about 25 percent of the time). Winds are generally less than 15 mph, with wind speeds faster
. than 25 mph occurring less than one percent of the time. The National Weather Service Station
·kin Blanding, Utah is located about 6.25 miles (10km) north of the Mill. Data from the station is
considered representative of the local weather conditions (1978 ER, Section 2. 7.2).
Further description of local and regional weather and climate data are given in the 1978 ER
(Section 2.7) and in the FES (Section 2.1).
3.3.1.2 On Site
On-site meteorological monitoring at the Mill was initiated in early 1977 and continues today.
The original purpose of the meteorological monitoring program was to document the regional
atmospheric baseline and to provide data to assist in assessing the potential air quality and
radiological impacts arising from the operation of the Mill.
After the Mill construction was completed, the monitoring programs were modified to facilitate
the assessment of Mill operations. The current meteorological monitoring program includes data
collection for wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability according to the standard
Pasquill scheme (via measurements of deviations in wind direction, referred to as sigma-theta),
and precipitation as either rain or snow. The meteorological data are reported on a semi-annual
basis. The details of these meteorological monitoring programs and the results are described in
semi-annual reports prepared for IUSA and maintained at the Mill. Figure 3.3-1 shows windroses
for the Mill site for January -December 200 l.
3.3.2 Baseline Air Quality
3.3.2.1 FES Evaluation
At the time of the 1978 ER and FES, the Four Corners Air Quality Control Region which
encompasses parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah and within which the Mill site is
located had a priority IA rating, signifying a violation of federal air standards, for particulate
matter and sulfur dioxide due to emissions from fossil-fueled power plants located within the
region (1978 ER, Sect. 2.7.4.2). This was an important consideration at the time since the
original proposal was to use coal and oil as the source of process and building heat. Thus, much
of the discussion of potential air quality effects of the Mill arose from discussions of the potential
International Uranium (USA) Corporation, Environmental Report, June 20, 2003
3-3
--
--1 -----,---
I
I
I l SOUTH __ --------L------
/ ,, ,, ,, ,.
I
I I I I I
/
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
i
January through December 2001
International Uranium (U.SA) Corporation
Project WHITE MESA MILL
AE\IISIONS Caun~ S111t1: UT
DIii B LocaUon:
Figure 3.3-1 ..•
Wind Speed Direction (blowing from)
For All Hours
Scale: AS SHOWN Data: June 2003 figure J.J-1.dwg
Author: HRR Draflad By: BM
High Density Polyethylene
Drain Liner1
"
Product Data
Property
Thickness (min. ave.), mil (mm)
Thickness (lowest indiv.), mil (mm)
Test Method
ASTM D5994*
ASTM D5994*
Values
50 (1.25) I 60 (1.5) I 80 (2.0)
50 (1.25) 54 (1.35) 72 (1.8)
100 (2.5)
90 (2.25)
*The thickness values nUt)' be changed due to project specifications (i.e., absolute minimum thickness)
Drainage Stud Height (min. ave.), mil (mm) ASTM D7466 130 (3.30) 130 (3.30) 130 (3.30) 130 (3.30)
Density, g/e<:, minimum ASTM D792, Method B 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Tensile Properties (ave. both directions) ASTM D6693, Type IV
Strength@ Yield (min. ave.), lb/in width (N/mm) 2 in/minute 110 (19.3) 132 (23.1) 176 (30.8) 220 (38.5)
Elongation@ Yield (min. ave.), % (GL=1.3in) 5 specimens in each direction 13 13 13 13
Strength@ Break (min. ave.), lb/in width (N/mm) 110 (19.3) 132 (23.1) 176 (30.8) 220 (38.5)
Elongation @ Break (min. ave.). % (GL=2.0in) 300 300 300 300
Tear Resistance (min. ave.), lbs. (N) , ASTM D1004 38 (169) 40 (178) 53 (236) 64 (285)
Puncture Resistance (min. ave.), lbs. (N) ASTM 04833 80 (355) 95 (422) 126 (560) 158 (703)
Carbon Black Content (range in%) ASTM 04218 2 -3 2-3 2-3 2-3
Carbon Black Dispersion (Category) ASTM 05596 Only near spherical agglomerates
for 1 O views: 9 views in Cat. 1 or 2, and 1 view in Cat. 3
Stress Crack Resistance (Single Point NCTL), hours ASTM 05397, Appendix 300 300 300 300
Oxidative Induction Time, minutes ASTM 03895, 200°C, 1 aim 02 2:100 2:100 2:100 2:100
Melt Flow Index, g/10 minutes ASTM 01238, 190°C, 2.16kg :S1 .0 S1.0 :S1 .0 ::,1.0
Oven Aging ASTM 05721 80 80 80 80 with HP OIT, {% retained after 90 days) ASTM 05885, 150°C, 500psi 02
UV Resistance GRI GM11 20hr. Cycle @ 75°C/4 hr. dark condensation @ 60°C
with HP OIT, (% retained after 1600 hours) ASTM 05885, 150°C, soopsi 02 50 50 50 50
These product specifications meet or exceed GRI's GM13
Supply Information (Standard Roll Dimensions)
Thickness Width Length Area (approx.) Weight (average)*
mil mm ft m ft m ftZ m2 lbs kg
50 1.25 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 2,600 1,178.34
60 1.5 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 2,900 1,315.42
80 2.0 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 3,600 1,632.93
100 2.5 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 4,000 1,814.37
Notes:
Alt mils are supplied with two slings. All rnlb-{(1'C wound 011 11 6 inch con. Spcd11l ltTJ.gths are 11vr1ilnble 011 1·cr111c;r. All rnlt lengths mid width, have n tolt1m1ec of± 1 %
•The weight vnlues mny chnnge due to project .,pccifications (i.e. absolute minim11111 tbickmss 01· sprdnl roll /c11gtb.!) 01· shipping requin:meuts (i.e. ii1ten1111iu11nl
t'OllflliMriud shipmellts}.
All inform:ition, rccommendarions nn<l suggestions aµpcnring in 1.his lirer~t'Urc concerning the ,c c or ow· products ore bnscd upon tests and d,1t:1 believed
to be reliable; however, it is the users responsibility l'O determine the suit.,bilit.y for their own use of the product$ dcscrilied herein. Since the actunl
use by othc!'s is· beyond our eontrnl, no gu1)1·,mtee or w.irrnmy of nuy kincl, expressed or impli~<l. is macle by Agru/Americn ru; to lh c encctS 11f such use
or the results co be ob~iinecl, nor clot:$ Agm/An1crica nssnme any liability io connection herewith. Any statement rnadc herein mny not b~ nbsolU\-ely
oo:nplete since ndditio11al infornrntion ma)• be nccessn,y or desirable whet\ particular or exceptional conditions or circumstances exist or hccausc of
applicable laws or government regulations. Nothing herein is to be construed as permission or :1s n recommenclation to infringe 11ny palelll .
500 Garrison Road, Georgetown, S011th Carolina 29440 843-546-0600 800-373-2478 Fax: [phone]
email: salesmkg@agnrnmeric,1.com www.agrnamerica.com
Sec. 5.1
"iii" 0.. c
II! ~
Geomembrane Properties and Test Methods
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0
j
~ I ,:
II
II
I I
I I
-· ___ , i ___ ..
__ .,, -
----CSPE-R -HOPE ....... PVC ...... VLDPE
,.•"'' ! ................. ~ ~~~-' -·········-···;··········
i
I
100 200 300 400
Strain(%)
Figure S.3 li:nsik l!!st r.:sults nn 200 mm widl!•width spL·cim<!ns of commonly used
!,!<:Umemlm1n.:s usin!! AST!\I D-18X5 test m.:thml.
427
formation bcncnlh n gcomcmhrnnc is such n case. T11is type ol' hehnvior could wdl be
anticipc11ccl for II gcnmcmhrnnc used in a l11ndfill cover placed over diffe ren tially sub-
siding solid-waste material. The sit untion can be modeled by placing the geomt:mbrnnc
in nn empty cotllaincr. ns shown in Figure 5.4. An appropriate seal is made with tht!
cover section and wutcr is introduced above the gcomcmbrnne. Pressure is mobilized
until the failure of the tesl specimen occurs. Beginning with Stefan (6], n number of
variations or this tesl havl:! be~n made. It is currently rornrnlizcd as ASTM D5716.
TABLE 5.5b TENSILE BEHAVIOR PROPERTIES OF HOPE, VLDPE, PVC, AND CSPE-R *" Wid.:-Width Tension Tests (Figure 5.3)
Tc5t Property Unil HOPE VLDPE PVC CSPE-R
Mu:<imum stress 11ncl (kPa) 15,900 7,600 LJ.800 31,000
corresponding strnin (%) 15 400' 210 23
.Jf. Modulus (MPu) 450 69 20 300
Ultimate str~ss and (kP11) 11.000 7,600 13.800 2.SOO
com:sponding strain (%) 400· 400· 210 79
Norn. thicknesses are: HOPE l.S mm. VLDPE 1.0 mm, PVC 0.75 mm, CSPE-R 0.91 mm.
Abbrevinlions: + = did not fnil
Source: Koerner, R.M. (1998), "Designing wit/r
Geosynthelics, "4th Edition. Pre11tice-Hall:
Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Client: EF ----
Title of Computations
Computations by:
Asswnptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Signature ~ ~----
Printed Name Keaton Botelho, P .E.
Title Project Engineer
Signature ~------
Printed Name Keaton Botelho, P .E.
Title Project Engineer
Title
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By Checked by
SC0634 .Pipe strength5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Project/
Proposal No.: SC0634
Task No. 02
12/1~/ 1·1-
Date
Date
Date
ll ( 1&/ IL
Date
Date .
Approval
Written by: R. Flynn
Client: EF
Geosyntec '>
consultants
Page 1 of 8
Date: Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Project: WMM -Cells 5A Project/ SC0634
and SB Proposal No.:
PIPE STRENGTH CALCULATIONS
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
Date: llf ,~J,z.
Task 02
No.:
OBJECTIVE
The project involves placement of a triple liner system for the bases of Cells 5A and 5B
at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. The proposed liner system is shown in
Attachment A. A 4-in diameter schedule 40 Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) pipe will be
buried under a maximum of 43 ft of tailing deposits plus 9 feet of cover soil for a total
of 52 feet of overburden. This calculation will evaluate if the pipe will remain
structurally intact with the maximum load placed above the buried pipe.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
The maximum possible load on the buried pipe is evaluated to be 45.1 pounds per
square inch (psi). Assuming a maximum allowable ring deflection of 7.5 percent, a
schedule 40 PVC pipe diameter of 4-in will remain structurally intact.
SITE CONDITIONS
The construction components pertinent to this analysis are, from top to bottom:
• Maximum of 43 ft of silt-like deposits with assumed maximum wet unit
weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) and 9 feet of cover soil with a
maximum unit weight of 125 pcf;
• 60-mil smooth HDPE Geomembrane;
• 4-in diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe, embedded in coarse aggregate for
the primary leak detection system (LDS);
• 300-mil geonet;
• 60-mil smooth HDPE Geomembrane;
• 4-in diameter schedule 40 PVC pipe, embedded in coarse aggregate for
the secondary leak detection system (LDS); and
• 60-mil Drain Liner® HDPE Geomembrane.
SC0634.Pipe strengthSA-SB.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 2 of 8
Written by: R.Fll'.no Date: Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1 z.[ol,t
Client: EF Project: WMM -Cells SA Project/ SC0634 Task 02
and5B Proeosal No.: No.:
A cross-section of the site conditions is presented as Attachment A.
ANALYSIS
In the analysis herein, the allowable ring deflection and the factor of safety values
against pipe wall crushing and buckling will be evaluated.
Ring Deflection
Ring deflection is the change in the vertical diameter of the pipe as the pipe/bedding
aggregate system deforms under the external vertical pressure. Ring deflection can be
evaluated using Spangler's Modified Iowa Formula, as follows:
DLKP+KW' -= -----=------
[ ZE 3 ]+0.061E'
3(DR-1)
D
(Attachment. B, 6/8)
where:
6 Pipe deflection or change in diameter, in.
D Pipe diameter, in.
P Prism soil load, psi
K Bedding constant
W' Live load, psi
DR Standard dimension ratio (SDR)
E Modulus of elasticity of pipe, psi
E' Modulus of soil reaction, psi
DL Deflection lag factor
Evaluate Variables
SC0634.Pipe strength5A-5B.2012l026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 3 of 8
Written by: R. Flynn Date: Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: tJ../r??L11,. r ~
Client: EF Project: WMM -Cells SA Project/ SC0634 Task 02
and SB ProEosal No.: No.:
ND The allowable ring deflection for PVC pipe is 7.5 (Attachment C, 2/2)
percent based on a factor of safety of 4
P Prism soil load= 125 pcf x 52 ft= 6,500 psf = 45.1 psi
Effect of Perforations
The effects of the perforations in the pipe should be checked to ensure they will not
significantly reduce the pipe strength. The frequency of perforations in the pipe will be
2 perforations per every 12 lineal inches of the pipe (Attachment A). The perforations
are anticipated to be 0.25 inches in diameter. According to EPA, Manual SW-8,
"Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities," the cumulative length of
perforations (lp) in the pipe should be determined per foot of pipe (Attachment G). This
value is determined by:
l ( length ) ( .r, . ) ( 0.25 in ) (2 .r, . ) . P = . · per1 oratzons = . · per1 oratzons = 0.50 m perforatzon p erforation
The total vertical stress (prism soil load) to be utilized for pipe design calculations
should be adjusted according to the following equation:
( l 2in J ( ) ( l 2in J ( ·) . Pr= . · P = . . · 45.lpsz = 47.lpsz = 6,777 psf
12zn -l P 12zn -0.50 zn
K Bedding constant = 0.1 (typical value, Attachment B, 5/8)
W' Live load = 0 (no live loads are expected for the site)
DR Standard dimension ratio = D0
t
(Attachment B, 3/8)
where:
SC0634.Pipe strength5A-5B.20 l2 l 026.F .calc.docx
Written by: R. FIInn Date: Reviewed by:
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA Project/
and SB Proposal No.:
t
Outside diameter of pipe= 4.500 in.
Minimum pipe wall thickness= 0.237 in.
so DR= 4·500 = 19.0
' 0.237
E Modulus of elasticity of pipe = 400,000 psi
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 4 of 8
G. Corcoran Date: 1y1'J/1,z..
SC0634 Task 02
No.:
(Attachment D, 2/2)
(Attachment D, 2/2)
(for Class 12454-B rigid PVC pipe; Attachment E, 2/2)
E' Modulus of soil reaction= 3,000 psi
= 1.0
Solve for the deflection provides:
DLKP+KW' ....-= -,-----"---------
[
2E 3]+0.061E' D
3(DR-1)
= 1.o(o.1X41.1)+0.1(0) = 2.1%
[
2(4oo,ooo )] + 0.061(3,000)
3(19.0-1)3
(for crushed rock, Attachment B, 5/8)
(Attachment B, 5/8)
Since the calculated ring deflection (2.1%) is lower than the maximum allowable ring
deflection (7.5%), the schedule 40 PVC pipe with 4-in will be suitable for the
anticipated loading conditions.
SC0634.Pipe strengthSA-SB.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec 0
consultants
Page 5 of 8
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 12-/13/,2..
Client: EF Project: WMM -Cells 5A Project/ SC0634 Task 02
and SB Proposal No.: No.:
Wall Crushing
Wall crushing can occur when the stress in the pipe wall, due to external vertical
pressure, exceeds the compressive strength of the pipe material. Wall crushing can be
calculated using the following equation:
(Attachment B, 8/8)
where:
T Wall thrust, lbs/in.
Py Vertical pressure, psi
Outside diameter of pipe = 4.500 in (Attachment D, 2/2)
and;
T =-
A
(Attachment B, 8/8)
where:
Compressive stress= 9,600 psi (Attachment F, 1/1)
A Cross sectional area of the pipe wall per unit length
= : (4.5002 -(4.500-2(0.237))2 )= 3. l 74in2 /12 in= 0.265 in2 /in
SC0634.Pipe strength5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Written by: R. Flynn Date: Reviewed by:
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA Project/
and SB Proposal No.:
Combining Equations and solving for Py provides:
p = 2cr cA
Y D u
Geo syn tee 0
consultants
Page 6 of 8
G. Corcoran Date: 12-/13/,z.
SC0634 Task 02
No.:
Substituting the variables into the above equation provides:
p = 2(9,600)(0.265) = 1 129 si
Y 4.500 ' p
Comparing the above estimated value to the maximum loading allowed under ring
deflection criteria (47.1 psi) provides:
FSwc = 1,129/47.1
=23.9
This value is greater than the acceptable factor of safety of 2.
Wall Buckling
Wall buckling, a longitudinal wrinkling in the pipe wall, can occur when the external
vertical pressure exceeds the critical buckling pressure of the pipe/bedding aggregate
system. Wall buckling can be calculated using the following equation:
p = 2E
er (DR-1)3 (Attachment B, 7 /8)
where:
Per Buckling pressure, psi
E Modulus of elasticity = 400,000 psi (Attachment E, 2/2)
SC0634.Pipe strength5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 7 of 8
Written by: R. Flynn Date: Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: I z,fi '3/ /Z.
Client: EF Project: WMM -Cells SA Project/ SC0634 Task 02
and SB Proposal No.: No.:
DR S d d d. . . D0 4.500 19 tan ar nnens10n ratio = -= --= .0 t 0.237
Therefore,
p = 2(400,000) = 137 si
er (19.0-1)3 p
Comparing the above estimated value to the maximum loading allowed under ring
deflection criteria ( 4 7 .1 psi) provides:
FSwc = 137/47.1
=2.9
This value is greater than the acceptable factor of safety of 2.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Using the Modified Iowa Formula as outlined in the Uni-Bell Plastic Pipe Association
Handbook on PVC Pipe, the maximum load on the buried pipe assumed to be 45.1 psi
will only cause a ring deflection of 2.0 percent, which is below the acceptable ring
deflection of 7.5 percent. Acceptable factor of safety values against wall crushing and
wall buckling were also evaluated using methods outlined in Uni-Bell Plastic Pipe
Association Handbook on PVC Pipe. Therefore, schedule 40 PVC pipe with 4-in
diameter is suitable for this application.
REFERENCES
ASTM D 1784 (1993), "Standard Specification for Rigid Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC)
Compounds and Chlorinated Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC) Compounds"
ASTM Annual Method of Standards -Plastics
SC0634.Pipe strength5A-5B.20121026.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Page 8 or 8
Wrlnen by: R. F.lynn Date.: Reviewed by: G. Corcornn Dale: I t/i'3/, 2.
Client EF Project: WMM-CeJls 5A Projccl/ SC0634 Task 02
and SB ·Proposal No.: Nb.:
ASTM D 1785 (1996), t'Standard Specification for Poly (Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic
Pipe, Schedules 40, 80, and 120" ASTM Annual Method of Standards -Plastics
ASTM D 3034 (1997) ... Standard Specification for Type PSM Poly(Vinyl Chloride)
(PVC) Sewer Pipe and Fittings" ASTM Annual Method of Standards -Plastics
The Uni-Bell Plastic.Pipe Association, "Handbook of PVC Pipe, Design and
Construction," Dru.last Texas, 214-.243-3902
SC0614.Pi}ll!-strengthSA-SEl20121026.F.Clllc.do~
;
I ~ !
300W.GEONET
ISOMILI-O'E GEOMEMBRANE. ~Ill LINER
~ ;~:;,_~ '~ ~
}'~ .~ ~ru ~ ·,;~ ~.~ ~ *~' ~ ~-~
9 DETAIL
*'~ ... ~ ~ ~-,~.:'~~ ~' ,-~~~
-' ,, ' ~ ~--: '~ ~
10
''~"· ~ ·,.
DETAIL
'
u·w.l
(NOTE2)
03A.03B.04A.04B BASE LINER SYSTEM 0:IA.038,041\,048 SIDE SLOPE LINER SYSTEM
SCALE:1":2
;S:l
-, ... ,~oi LL
~.__j ....
,,
f1t'I ""'
SCALE 1""'2'
:,.,' ~~ r--
·. --~
12
04A,048
DETAIL
SECONDARY LEAK DETECTION
RISER PENETRATION
SCA.l.E1":2'
CONCRETE PIPE:(19'\
Sl.f>PORT ~
14
04A,04B
DETAIL
SLIMES DRAIN RISER
PENETRATION
~ ~~~~-:,;--.y~~mli~ll',1"1,);:'l
TOE OF SLOPE
"'"""""'
·11A'\ DETAJL
03A,038,04A,Ool8,05.~.09../ ANCHOR TRENCH
IC,,l,ilA; 1'"•:'
ruA=~,::'"' I ,,
,)'l,!D~ Rl~~"c"· :'~,~~~-1-i==~~~~~,,__/ ~ ~.~ --~,j°"N-~~' .... ~ ·~·.:,. " '-~ I ··"· •.
118'\ DETAIL
03/..038,/ ACCESS ROAD & ANCHOR TRENCH ~r·,.
1 DETAILS ARE SHO.-\N TO SCALE f'IOICATED EXCS>T F~ TI-E
GEOS'!'N™E'TICS V*-IICHARE SHOWII AT AN EXAGGERATED SCIILEFORCl.>,RITY
2 ANCf-lORTi:m-JCHES MAY BE CONSTRUCTEOWITHA MAXIMUM CE>TH OF 3 ~ FEET WITH lP TO 1 FOOT CF BACKFILL 6E1YIEEN E,lCH GEOMEMBRANE IN oonOM OF ANG1-IOR TRENQ-1 ~ DETAIL
I~ ,a} PRIMARY LEAK DETECTION
SYSTEM RISER PENETRATION
.) PREPAAEOSU8GRADE AT CEU &lSE SHALL CONSIST OF AT
LE.AST 6-f'IOES CF FLL OVERLY NG sa.NOSTONE t,/
ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 02200 AND 02220 OF THE
TED,NICAL SPEC,FIGATIONS ALL LOOSE (BLA.STEO ~ RIPPED)
SOLAND ROCK SHALL BE REMOVED TO EXPOSE COMPETENT
SOL I ROO( PRIOR TO Pl.AONG ENGINEERING FlL
SCALE 1"=2'
-~· . . .. ttl ,vcso;eD<A.E<O"-"
tM"tGB-11~ ..,,,.,..,,.,..
\ •. J_tO'"
15
07,08
DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE
SCALE 1"=1'
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Geosyntecl>
eonsul<ants
11111'15RANCHO~RD,Sl/T52UU ~~~~=
Attachment A
eF
LINER SYSTEM DETAILS I
1'flSCll'-<>MA1..0TH~O
tCNS10UCTDICJNLl!$S,:a..,.1o
-
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND 58
'MillE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
-D
GTC
MMC .. ,
GTC
GTC
~" JANUARY:2<l13
~OJl!~T"°° =
'" '"""'"''" .... w.o. ..
__Q§_ M _J__Q_
.
The Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association
Handbook
of
PVC Pipe
Design and Construction
Qnn@oll)®
Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association
2655 Villa Creek Drive, Suite 155
Dallas, Texas 75234
$40.00
~;,ue ~--!,:. ... I ~i\-4ri'1fi,s~~~·:!.·4 • ~"-·1 ' :~awa= SSS&&J@ii4&MZL& Smrr nn "l4!J. ~~-· 0.,
~ -
I ~ : ;
':-t ~ :::i:;: \.J ~ \C
~
IIA~UUOOK OF P\"C l'Jl'E
TABLE 6.3 -Continued
Height of I Soil Unit Weight (Ib/ft3)
Cover (ft) 100 110 -120 125 130
36 25.00 27.50 30.00 31.25 32.50
37 25.69 28.26 30.83 32.12 33.40
38 26.39 29.03 31.67 32.99 34.31
39 27.08 29.79 32.50 33.85 35.21
40 27.78 30.56 33.33 34.72 36.11
41 28.47 31.32 34.17 35.59 37.01
42 29.17 32.08 35.00 36.46 37.92
43 29.86 32.85 35.83 37.33 38.82
44 30.56 33.61 36.67 38.19 39.72
45 31.25 34.38 37.50 39.06 40.63
46 31.94 35.14 38.33 39.93 41.53
47 32.64 35.90 39.17 40.80 42.43
48 33.33 36.67 40.00 41.67 43.33
49 34.03 37.43 40.83 42.53 44.24
50 34.72 38.19 41.67 43.40 45.14
Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 assume a typical range for Hand w. The table
limits do not imply application limits.
Live Loads: Underground PVC pipe may also be subjected to live
loads from different sources such as highways and railways. Live loads
have little effect on pipe performance except at shallow burial depths.
Several me~ods exist for calculating these live loads. The design ap-
proach presented here is taken from the American Water Works Association
standard for fiberglass pipe (A WW A C950).
Based on the Boussinesq formula for a point load at the surface of a
semi-infinite elastic soil:
WL CLP(l + Ir)
12 i
Where: WL = live-load on pipe, in pounds per inch
CL = live-load coefficient, per foot of eff cctivc length
P = wheel load, in pounds
Ir = impact factor, dimensionless (~J66 -
0.133H; ~ s rr s o.sQ) ~ 1·1<r\· ~ \_l:.:ti ~.:~:.l
?J.nlr,• . .-..rf..,.r..l A A ~tJTr\ tT~n. •-·-'-• .. ,-_, • .. • ,~ • ·
~ t-...:i
t ll:\l'TER YI -SL:n:iu:-.1 ('().',) (I I.DAUS 0~ Ul"Rll·.l"
Tables 6.4 and 6.5 give the live load coefficient CL for a single
wheel load and for two passing trucks, respectively. Th; design app
taken in these tables conservatively represents a wheel load as a point
Analytical expressions for CL are given below the tables in terms of tht
diameter or radius and the height of cover.
TABLE 6.4
LIVE-LOAD COEFFICIENTS FOR SINGLE-WHEEL LO
Height of Cover Over Pipe H -ft
2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Pipe
Diameter
in. Live-Load Coefficient Q
8 0.056 0.020 0.010 0.006 0.004 0.003 0.002
10 0.069 0.025 0.012 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.002
12 0.081 0.029 0.014 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.003
14 0.091 0.034 0.016 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.003
16 0.103 0.038 0.018 0.010 0.007 0.005 0.004
)8 0.115 0.042 0.020 0.012 0.008 0.005 0.004
20 0.124 0.046 0.022 0.013 0.008 0.006 0.004
24 0.141 0.055 0.026 0.015 0.010 0.007 0.005
30 0.167 0.066 0.032 0.019 0.012 0.007 0.006
J<, 0.183 0.076 0.038 0.022 0.015 0.010 0.008
42 0.196 0.085 0.044 0.026 0.017 0.012 0.009
48 0.205 0.094 0.049 0.029 0.019 0.014 0.010
NOTE I: An cffcclivc length of 3.0 fl of pipe is assumed.
NOJ"E2:
I 2 [ CL =3-31tARCSIN H R2+ H2 + J..52 J
(R2 + H2) (Hl + 1.52)
RH[ (R2 ~ 1-12 + H2: 1.s2)]
+
1tVR2 + 1-12 + 1.52
16
0.001
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
WHERE: 11 :.a carlh cover. in feel; R = pipe radius. in feel; ARCSIN must be in radians.
I
As mentioned previously, the influence oflive loads on the perforn
of PVC pipe is only significant in shallow depths, usually 4 feet (1.
and less for highway loads. This is graphically demonstrated by the !
in Figure 6.7. Both show the total loa.d calculated on a pipe exposed t<
loads and earth loads for highway and for railway trafr;,.
DESIGN OF BURIED PVC PIPE
:xible pipe may_ be defined as a conduit that will deflect at least two
without any sign of structural distress such as injurious cracking.
1duit to behave as a flexible pipe when buried, it is required that the
nore yielding~than the embedment soil surrounding it.
:xible pipe derives jts soil load carrying capacity from its flexibility.
)il load. the 'P.ipe tends to deflect, thereby developing passive soil
at the sides of ~he pipe. At the same time, the ring deflection rc-
e pipe of the major portion of the vertical soil load which is then
,y the surrounding soil through the mechanism of an arching action
pipe. (See Chapter VI.)
effective strength of the pipe-soil system is remarkably high. For
, tests at Utah State University indicate that a rigid pipe with a three-
iring strength of 3300 lb/ft (48.15 kN/m) buried in Class C bedding
with a soil load of 5000 lb/ft (72.95 kN/m). However, under Lhe
soil conditions and loading, PVC sewer pipe with a minimum pipe
of 46 psi deflects only 5 percent. This deflection is far below that
>Uld cause damage to the PVC pipe wall. Thus, in this example, the
e has failed but the flexible pipe has performed successfully.
)urse, in flat plate or three-edge loading, the rigid pipe will support
ore than the flexible pipe. This anomaly tends to mislead many
e flexible pipe users because they relate low flat plate suppurling
for flexible pipe to the in-soil load capacity. Flat plate or three-edge
is an appropriate measure·of load bearing strength for rigid pipes
or flexible pipes.
· Stiffness: The inherent strength of flexible pipe is called pipe
which is measured; according to ASTM D 2412 Standard Test
for External Loading Properties of Plastic Pipe by Parnllcl-Plate
, at an arbitrary datum of 5 percent deflection. Pipe stiffness is de-
EQUATION 7.1
PS= F/6 Y = EI = 6.71EI 0.149r3 r3
I wall pipes Equation 7. 1 can be rewritten as:
! Q8
PS = F//lY = G.?l~t3 = 0.559E [_!_] 3
I2r r
Where: PS = Pipe Stiffness, lbf/in/in. or psi
F = Force, lbs./Lin.
Cl. Y = Vertical deflection, in.
E = Modulus of elasticity, psi
I = Moment of inertia of the wall cross-section per
unit length of pipe, in4JLin. = in3
r = Mean radius of pipe, in.
t = wall thickness, in.
For solid wall PVC pipe with outside diameter controlled dimensions
(rather than I.D.) Equation 7.2 can be further simplified:
EQUATION 7.3
E
PS = 4.47 (DR -1)3
Where: DR-~ -t
The resulting PS values for various dimension ratios and E values of
PVC pipe are as shown in Table 7.1.
In addition to altering the "I" value by changing the DR, alternative
shapes can be employed. It is this option of more efficient shapes that has
resulted in a variety of profile wall gravity PVC pipe products for sanitary
and drain applications. Users are afforded the economy of a higher stiff-
ness than a DR product of the same raw material quantity and strength.
Equation 7.1 shows that the pipe stiffness increases as the moment of
inertia of the wall cross section increases. For a solid wall pipe the moment
3
of inertia is equal to f 2 in4JLin., with the center of gravity being at the mid-
point of the pipe wall.
199
----l!l!!!l!!IIElfll!!!W'll!lllll'll~:1119;r.3";rl;i~JIS!!Bl!lll~i,i!!i,W::'!IJ!io,lll!':lt~~ .. ,.-,,., • ..,.JT , .• ec . ; ,.,.,s;:+eQ>A r.:--· ..... -:. t .oa.t.:y.;:. ,,. ,.uc)C ... DIS AW4-......S::X.. ~-'F • . 4 »&CGP& A S . C I ccac za ; p ,,.S:et4F4£4.ULL:UWWWUC&L..JrilJ.Sl'\¥cffG &.b&AEhLC!!VAO. · •
~ ~
~
\ ~ ...... -~ ~ ~ "'
--
SIS OF SPANGLER'S DERIVATION OF THE 10\VA
iRMULA FOR DEFLECTION OF BURIED PIPES
TOl ,'\L L(Ji,I} W
(EQUATION 7.6)
LlX = DLKWcr3
EI + 0.06ler4
UJJ1II!lJ!llllJ
THE IOWA FORMULA
e
lr
K
DL
EI •
..:.:-.
.:.
EQUATION 7.9
_ KWcr3
LU -DL EI + 0.061er4
e: DL = Deflection lag factor
K = Bedding constant
= 2h/t;X
= D = Mean Pipe
diamcrcr
= Betiding l"IIIL~lant = Deflection lag
facror
= Sliffncss factor
(related to pipe
sti rr ncs.s)
W c = Marston's load per unit length of pipe, lb/Lin.
r = M~ radius of the pipe, in.
E = Modulus of elasticity of the pipe material, psi
I = Moment of inertia of the pipe wall per unit
length, in4/Lin = in3
e = Modulus of passive resistance of the side fill,
lbfin2Jin.
Ll X = Horizontal deflection or change in diameter, in.
n 7 .9 can be used to predict deflections of buried pipe if the three
Jnstants K, DL and e are known. The bedding constant. K, ac-
.;(J.I
l:ummoaaccs me response or tne ounea t1ex101e pipe to the opposite and
equal reaction to the load force derived from the bedding under the pipe. .
The bedding constant varies with the width and angle of the bedding ~
achieved in the installation. The bedding angle is shown in Figure 7.4.
Table 7 .2 contains a list of bedding factors. K, dependent upon the bedding ~ ...
angle. These were determined theoretically by Spangler and publi~hed in '\--
1941. As a general rule, a value ofK = 0.1 is assumed. :: 't --
FIGURE 7.4 ~ ~
BEDDING ANGLE f
---BEDDING ANGIE ~
,,;,,,,,,,;;;,,,,,~,,j,~~~~,,,~,~,~,,,,.rrrrr •rr• ••;~,,,,,,,,,
.::~~~~~~~~:::~~:~~:~:~~:~~~~~~:.:~:,:~~:~~~:::.~~~ BFDDING :~:~:~~:~~:.: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,~ ,,,,,,,,,,,,.,,,,,,,,,,-,,,~,,,.,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,.,,.,
TABLE 7.2
VALUES OF BEDDING CONSTANT, K
BEDDING ANGLE ffiEGREESl
0
30
45
60
90
120
180
K
0.110
0.108
0.105
0.102
0.096
0.090
0.083
In 1955, Reynold K. Watkins, a graduate student of Spangler, was in-
vestigating the modulus of passive resistance through model studies and ex-
amined the Iowa Formula dimensionally. The analysis determined that e
could not possibly be a true property of the soil in that its dimensions are
not those of a true modulus. As a result of Watkins' effort, another soil pa-
rameter was defined. This was the modulus of soil reaction, E' = er.
205
EQUATION 7.10
_ KWcr3
.6X -DL EI + 0.061E 'r3
other observations from Watkins' work are of particular note.
Jittle point in evaluating E' by a model test and then using the
to predict ring deflection; the model gives ring deflection directly.
:ection may not be the only performance limit
( research efforts have attempted to measure E' without success.
l useful method has involved the measure of deflections for a pipe
hich other conditions were known followed by back-calculaLion
the Modified Iowa Formula to detennine the correct value of E'.
iires assumptions regarding the load, bedding factor and deflection
~ to be used and has led to a variation in reported values of E'.
attempt to acquire information on values of E' was conducted by
C Howard of the United States Bureau of Reclamation. Howard
both laboratory and field data from many sources. Using infor-
om over 100 laboratory and field tests, he compiled a table or avcr-
1lues for various soil types and densities (see Table 7.3). I le was
o this by assuming values of E', Kand W c and then using the
A VERA GE VALUES OF MODULUS OF SOIL REACTION, E'
(For Initial Flexible Pipe Deflection)
E' for Degree of Compaction of Bedding •
in oounds t>Ct" sau.are inch
Slight, Moderate. : High.
<85% 85%-95% >95%
Proctor, Proctor. Proctor,
<40% 40%-70% >70%
Soil type-pipe bedding matcrial relative relative relative
(Unific<l Classification System•) Dumped density density density
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Fine-grained Soils (LL > .SO)b
Soils with medium to _high plasticity No data available; consult a competent
CH. MH, CH-MH soils cnrinccr. Otherwise use E' = 0
Fine-gr11.incd Soils (LL < 50)
Soils with medium to no plasticity, CL.
ML. ML-CL, with less than 25% coarse-
,u:iinecl oartic[cs 50 200 400 1.000
Finc-grai11c<l Soib (LL< 50)
Soils with medium to no plasLicity, CL.
ML. ML-CL, wilh more than 25%
coarse-grained particles 100 400 1,000 2.000
Coarse-grained Soils with Fines
GM, GC. SM, SC" contains more than 12%
fines
. ( ~
Co:irse-graincd Soils wilh Lillie or no Fines
3,00~
GW, GP. SW, SP" cont:iins less than 12%
fines 200 1.000 2 000 Iowa Formula to calculate a theoretical value of deflection. This
tl deflection was then compared with actual measurements. lly as-
1e Et values of Table 7.3; a bedding constant K = 0.1 and dcOcc-
actor DL = 1.0. Howard was able to correlate the theoretic:il and
) ' Crnshcd Rock
Accunic:v in Terms of Pc:r~ta~c Ocncctiqnd
1.000 3,000 3,000 3,000 .,.
results to within± 2 percent deflection when he used tl1e prism
This means that if theoretical deflections using Table 7 .J were
:nely 5 percent, measured denection would range between .l arnl 7
Although the vast majority of data from this study was 1akl'11 from
tccl and reinforced plastic mortar pipe with diameters greater than
, it does provide some useful information to guide designers of all
ipe including PVC pipe since it helps to give an understanding of
ied Iowa Deflection Formula.. ·
!(It)
·A~.
j/
·"'l ··•
~ . .5--~W·{Ei!2Ei!G+W-!!;(,§l.' "'~·--i·~~c.;.,is _z;;s.,
±2
·ASTM DcsignatiolJ D 2487. USBR Designation E-3.
bU.. = Liquid limiL
±2 ±1 ±0.5
cor any borderline soil_ beginning with one of these symbols (i.e. GM-GC, GC-SC).
dFor ±1 % accuracy and prc<lictcd dencction of 3%. actual d1:flcction would be between 2%
and 4%.
Note: Values applicable only for fills less than 50 ft (15 m). Table docs not include any
s:ifcty factor. For use in predicting initial deflections only, appropriate DeOcction Lag Factor
must he 11pplied for long-tern, denection.~. Jr bedding falls on the borderline between two
compaction categories, select lower E" value or average the two values. Percentage Proctor
based on lalx:mnory muimum dry density from test slandards using about 12.500 ft-lb/cu ft
(598,000 J7m3:) (ASTM 'D 698, AAS.HTO T-99. USBR Designation E-11). l psi= 6·.9 kPa.
SOURCE: "Soil Reaction for Buried flexible Pipe" by Amster K. Howard. U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation. Denver, Colon.do. Reprinted with permission from American Society of Civil
Engineers.
207
:ss;::;pw. ,,p .. .,.J .. » .. :>.;:, ~.,..,.a .s ; ; . :u;z ... u.-v-i=--,...-.
HA:--;DHOOK OF PVC PIPE
l;il C. t ... "O u ~. t..J
00 ;:~ u,., < .. >! ... -~ .. <" "Cl ci:: ~ ..
~ ii~
t,.. ;::, :r:
~ r:i::
..J ~ ~ ,:a 0~ < VJ~ ... ;,;= 0 ... -.. ... ~ u ~~ ti:~
'-l ~ ~ .. C. Q'-'
~~ <= • u -.. ;,c u ..
.J~ < u
. Elll
l:.. ii ii
,n °'"" .... _O\N<'l<'l ·ll'i~N..:
OH~CICICICI Ncoo..-·v;Cf'i~..;
II"\,.... -IQ 'DONC'O .. vi~N~
"' .... r-'° .-..,.000 .. ..; ('I'\....;...;
I
c:i
·i;; 5 0 P.t;;.r;;"3 .. C g.t.. g 8-g g
..J ~ 0 ·2 E "5 '; u .. ~ > e ;f ~ :J i:S
·r;;
Q. c;O 0 . . ..,-
3~ ~.M ~"" ·;:;; '-..Z! p. 0 c g :'.I g 0 "3 ,,
0 ,;,~ ~ ~6
II II II II II II II
c.,~;.°' 1-<l ,;Q ~Q
M $
...... N ...
~
,':;
0
i== < ;,
Cl ~
r ·· l
-w -,0
0
0
--!:?. -~ M
II
~jo
-
-..\<
1
,::, ...
I
I
-5,
"ii 3'
::, ~
!s
"'d ..0
C 0 -~ ~ u ~
t:.i I-~
~ ..s
CllAl'TEll \"II llE:,ll,\ OF UCRIED l'\"l i
Dcficclion Lag and Creep: The length of time that a buried fle:x
pipe will continue to deflect after the maximum imposed load is realize:
limited and is a function of soil density in the pipe zone. As soil densil
the sides of the pipe increases, the time during which the pipe will cont
to dcflccl decreases, and lhe total deflection in response to load decrease
In fact, afLer the trench load reaches a maximum, the pipe-soil sys
continues to deflect only as long as the soil arounct the pipe is in the pro
of consolidation. Once the embcdmcnt soil has reached the density requ
to support the load, the pipe will not continue to deflecL
The full load on any buried pipe is not reached immediately after in:
lation unless Lhe final backfill is compacted to a high density. For a 1
with good flexibility, the long-tcnn load will not exceed the prism 1,
The im:1casc in load with time is the largest contribution to increasing
Ocction. Therefore, for design, tl1e prism load should be used, thus cf
Lively compensating for the increased trench consolidation load with I
and resulling increased deflection. When deflection calculations are b:
on prism loads, 1.hc deflection lag factor, DL, should be l.O.
Creep is nom1ally associated with the pipe material and is define
continuing deformation with time when the material is subjected to a,
stanl load. Most plastics exhibit creep. As temperarure increases, the c·
raLe under a given load increases. Also, as stress increases, the creep
for a given Lcmpcrature increases. As PVC creeps, it also relaxes with t
Stress relaxation is defined as the decrease in stress, with time, in a ma.ti
held in consw.nL dcfom1ation.
Figure 7 .5 shows stress relaxation curves for PVC pipe samples hcl
a constant deflection condition. It is evident that PVC pipe does r
su-csscs with Lime. The highest stress in a buried PVC non-pressure pit
cncowHcn:.d at Lhc equilibrium deflection condition. The behavior den
slrn.tcd i11 Figure 7.5 results in a decrease in the actual stress in the pi1
Lhat de.flee Lion.
figure 7 .6 shows long-term data for PVC pipe buried in a soil ·
Long-1cm1 dcOcction tests were run at Utah State University by imposi
given soil load which was held constant throughout the duration of the
PVC pipe maLcrial creep properties have little influence on deflection
but soil pmpcnies such as density exert great influence.
v .. up Lu .10 .iup ax1e. unaer ugnr to medrnm aircraft lo:1c.ls or up 10
00 pounds gross weight, a minimum burial depth of 2 feet is rl'cnm-
cd.
is recommended that special attention be giyen to the selection, placc-
md compaction of backfill material with shallow burial flexible pipe.
.s PVC pipe underneath rigid pavement to prevent injurious cracking
road smface.
reverse curvature performance limit for flexible steel pipe was cstab-
shortly ~t,er publicatiqn of the Iowa Formula. It was detcnnincd that
;ated steel'pipe would begin to reverse curvature at a deflection of
20 percenL Design at that time called for a limit of 5 percent de0ec-
1US providing a structural safety factor of 4.0. From this early design
eration, an arbitrary design value of 5.0 percent deflection was sc-
ried PVC sewer pipe (ASTM D 3034, DR 35), when deflecting in re-
. to external loading, may develop recognizable reversal of curvature
flccrion of30 percent. This level of deflection has been commonly
ated as a conservative performance limit for PVC sewer pipe. Re.-
at Utah State University has demonstrated that the load carrying ca-
of PVC sewer pipe continues to increase even when deflections in-
substantially beyond the point of reversal of curvature. With consid-
of this performance characteristic of PVC sewer pipe, engineers
lly consider the 7.5 percent deflection limit recommended by ASTM
I (Appendixes) to provide a very conservative factor of safety againsl
:al failure.
igitudinal bending of a pipeline is usually indicative of less than sat-
-;y installation conditions. Unlike "rigid pipes," PVC pipe will not
n flexure but will bend. Usually such bending does not significantly
a pipeline's perform~ce. Only short radius bends can be considered
11ance limiting for PVC pipe. (See Chapter VIII -Special Design
11ions -Longitudinal Bending.)
: buckling phenomenon may govern design of flexible pipes under
ons of internal vacuum, sub-aqueous installations or loose soil
J the external load exceeds the compressive strength of the pipe ma-
~or a circular ring subjected to a uniform external pressure or internal
1, the critical buckling pressure (Per) is defined by Tunoshenko as:
.~
. "
Where:
3EI _ 0.447 PS Per= r3 -
r = Mean pipe radius, in.
I = Pipe wall moment of inertia (in4/in)
PS = Pipe stiffness · ·
E = Modulus of elasticity, psi
With the moment of inertia (I) defined as t3/12 for solid wall pipes,
Equation 7 .13 becomes:
EQUATION 7.14
P _ 2E _ 2E
er -[D 0t -~] 3 -(DR -1)3
Where: E = Modulus of elasticity, psi
DR = Dimension ratio
D0 = Outside pipe diameter, in.
l = Pipe wall thickness, in.
For long tubes such as pipelines under combined stress, E is replaced by
E/(1 -v2) and the critical buckling pressure is:
EQUATION 7.15
P _ 3ET _ 0.447 PS
cr-(J-vl)r3 -(1 -v:Z)
or for solid wall pipes
EQUATION 7.16
p _ 2E _ 2E [ t ]3
cr-(1-v2)(DR. 1)3 -(1-v2) Do -t
223
~ ~
~
~
l ... ...,
" ... 'i., ... I
'
-:
·d in this installation.
2E 2(400,000)
= (I-v2)(DR-I)3 = [l • (0.38)2] (18-J)3 = ]90.3 ()SI
::
DR 35 PVC sewer pipe with a 400,000 psi modulus of elasticity
1fined in a saturated soil providing E' = 800 psi, what height (H) of
1rated soil which weighs 120 lbs/ft3 (w) would cause buckling?
eight will be-limi~ so deflection does nor exceed 7 .5 perccn r.
_ 2(400,000) _ .
Per -[l -(0.38)2] (35 • 1)3 -23·8 psi
Pb = 1.15 "123.8 (800) = 158.7 psi = 22,850 psf
H = P/w = 22,850/120 = 190 feet
deflection to 7 .5 percent:
KPe l O A= .149 PS+ .061E' x O
P A(.149 PS + .061E')
e-K
0.075 [.149(46) + .061(800)]
= 0.11
Pe -:d -37.9 psi = 5,464 psf
II (to limit deflection) = 5,464/120 = 45.5 ft.
imum cover is limited by the allowable deflection not by buckling.
-efore, the safety factor for the critical failure mode by buckling of
·vc pipe is ample.
:arch has established that flexible steel pipe walls can buckle at de-
; considerably less than 20 percent if the load is large and the soil
ling the pipe is extrrrnely compacted. Based on tht'Sl' nil';~·! •::11i11w;,
.. ---. ~
Lhc dc~ign of buried flexible pipes. This theory assumed that the backfill Qi.:
was highly compacted, that deflection would be negligible and that the per-2;f
fonnancc limit was wall crushing. The design concept is expressed by:
EQUATION 7.21
Do T = Pyx 2
Where: Py = Y ertical soil pressure, psi
D 0 = Outside diameter, in.
T = Wall Thrust, pounds/in.
EQUATION 7.22
T ac = A
Where: crc = Compressive stress, psi
A = Area of the pipe wal4 in.2/in.
~
Example: A profile wall PVC pipe (D0 = 19.15 in., A= 2.503 in.2/ft.) is
concrete cradled. At what vertical soil pressure or depth of cover could one
expect failure by ring compression? (w = 120 lbsJft3)
T crc = A Py = wl-1
Conservatively assume crc = hydrostatic design basis or hoop tensile= 4000
psi.
P _ crc2 A _ 4'000(2)(2.503/ 12)
y-D0 -19.15
Py = 87.1 psi = wH
H = ~= 87•1 psi 144 in2/ft2
W 120 Jbs/ft.3 X
227
~
"-1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -;;::;
c includt<
' , Pa
-1tio,
for a Ion
I pressu,!
,rough lht
1ls In Pii>:
~f oesignation: D 3034 -97
Standard Specification for
Type PSM Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Sewer Pipe and
Fittings1
T~i~ st.nnd11td _is i.s.suc_d und~r the /lite~ ~csignation D 3034; lh~ .number immedi:iltly following the dcsigna1ion indicate$ 1he year or
ongioa.l ~dopu?n or, 1~ lh~ CIISC or rcVl.51~0, the ycnr ?r hut rcvmon. A number In p:uc11lhcscs indicates 1he rear of last ccapprovnl. A
superscnpt epsilon (,) 1nd1calC$ an cdltonl11 change Since the IILSt revision or reapproval.
This Jp«f/lcation /ras been approved for ure by agencin of the Department of Deft,ue. Consult the DoD Inde."( of Specifications a/'ld
StandordJ /or the spec/Jlc year of Issue which luu been adopted by the Departm1n1 of Defense.
J, Scope
I.I This specification covers requirements and test
JDClhods for materials, dimensions, workmanship, flattening
resistance, impact resistance, pipe stiffness, extrusion quality,
joining systems and a form of marking for type PSM
poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) sewer pipe and fittings.
1.2 Pipe and fittings produced to this specification should
~ installed in accordance with Practice D 2321.
1.3 The text of this specification references notes, foot-
not~. and appendixes which pravide explanatory material.
These notes and footiloles (excluding those in tables and
figures} shall nol be considered as requirements of the
specification.
1.4 The values st:itcd in inch-pound units are to be
rtgarded as the standard. The \'alues gi\'en in parentheses are
for information only.
1.5 The following precautionary caveat pertains only to
tht test methods portion. Section 8. of this specification:
This standard dot's 1101 p11rp11r1 to mldrl's.1· all oj' tlw safety
concerns, if w1,1·. m.rndmetl ll'itlt ifs us,·. It is the responsi-
bilitr of the 1/SL'r ,?{ 1hi.\' .1·1mulard 111 cswhli.l'h appropriate
safety and h,:alth practicc.'i am/ d,•1,·m1im· 1hc• applicability <?I'
regulatory /imiw1in1:s prior 111 11s,·.
2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASTM Swndardl':
D6!8 PracticL' for Conditioning Plastics and Electrical
Insulating t,.faterinls for Testing"
D 1600 Terminology for Abbreviated Terms Relating to
Plasticsl,J
D 1784 Specification for Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride)
(~VC) Compounds and Chlorinated Poly(Vinyl Chlo-
nde) (CPVC) Compoundsl
D2122 Test Method for Determining Dimensions of
Thennoplastic Pipe and Fittings3
D2152 Test Method for Degree of Fusion of Extruded
Poty(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Pipe and Molded Fittings
by Acetone Immersion3
-----
1 This Pl.i.ni . ~pc:cilication is under lhc jurisdic1ion of ASTM Committee F-17 on
._ c Piping Syslcms nnd is the direct rcsponsibilit, or Subcommittee Fl 7.62 on ~L .
~0~urrcot edition approved Ixc:. 10, 1996 Bnd May JO, 1997. Published l)~:~r 1997, Orillinally published Cl5 D JOJ4 -72. l..asl previous edition
I 96.
> ~m111a/ Book of AS7i\f Sm11tlurds, Vol 08.01 .
nn1U1/ B()o/.: of ,t~TM Srumlur,/J, Vol 08.04.
333
D 2321 Practice for U ndergrou od lostallation of Thermo-
plastic Pipe for Sewers and Other Gravity-Flow
Applicationsl
D 2412 Test Method for Determination of External
Loading Characteristics of Plastic Pipe by Parallel-Plate
Loading3
D 2444 Test Method for Impact Resistance of Thenno-
plastic Pipe and Fittings by Means of a Tup (Falling
Weight)3
D 2564 Specification for Solvent Cements for Poly(VinYI
Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Piping Systemsl •
D 2749 Symbols for Dimensions of Plastic Pipe Fittin2s3
D 2855 Practice for Making Solvent-Cemented Joints \~·iih
Poly(\'inyl Chloride) (PVC) Pipe and Fittingsl
D 3212 Specification for Joints for Drain and Sewer Pbstil:
Pipes Using Flexible Elastomeric Seals3
F 412 Terminology Relating to Plastic Piping SystcmsJ
2.2 Fcdt•ra/ Standard:4
Fed. Std. No. 123 Marking for Shipment (Civil Agcn-:i.:sl
2.3 Military Srandard:4
I\IIL-STD-129 f',.farking for Shipment and Storage
J . Terminology
3.1 l),·1:1:i1io11.I'-Detinitions arc in accordance with T.·;·.
miMlog:, F..: 12. nnd abbreviations are ih accordance w111i
Terminology D 1600. unless otherwise specified. The a::ibr::·
\'iation ot' polr( vinyl chloride I plastics is PVC.
3.1.1 The term PSM is nor o.n abbreviation but rath'!i ,!~
arbitrary designation for a product having certain dimen-
sions.
4. Significance and Use
4.1 The requirements of this specification are intended to
provide pipe and fittings suitable for non-pressure draionge
of sewage and surface water.
NOTE 1-lndustrinl wastt disposal lines should be installed onh· with
the specific approval of the cogni.unt code authori1y sicce chemlc.;,is nc,t
commonly found in drains nod s.:wers and temperatures in excess of
6o•c ( I ..\O'F) may be encountered.
5. Materi:ils
5.1 Basic Materials-The pipe shall be made of P\'C
plastic having a cell classification of 12454-B or 12454-C or
12364-C or 13364-B (with minimum tensile modulus of
' ~ A,·ail3bk rrom S111nd.udiz.:ilioo Documents Order Desk, Bldg. 4 S.:ction D,
700 Robbins A\'~ •• Philadtlphia, PA 191 l 1·.5094, Ann: NPODS.
4ITT}J D 3034
TABLE X1,1 Base Inside Diameters and 71/a % Deflection Mandrel Dimension
In.
SDR-41 SDR-35 S0R·26 SPA 23.5 --Nominal Average Base 71/1" De-Average Base 71/a i Da-Average Base 71/1 i De-Average Base 1•1a;o;:-Size, In. Inside Inside llecUon Inside Inside llectlon Inside Inside fleet/on ln!lde Inside flot11oo
Diameter DiameterA Mandrel· Diameter Diameter A Mandrel Diameter Diameter A Mandrel Diameter Diameter" Millllfrd
6 5.951 5.800 5.37 5.893 5.742 5.31 5.764 5.612 5.19 5.713 5.562 6~
8 7.968 7.740 7.18 7.891 7.665 7.09 7.715 7.488 8.93
9 8.952 8.691 8.04
10 9.958 9.657 8.93 9.864 9.563 8.84 9.644 9.342 8.64
12 11.854 11..478 10.62 11.737 11.361 10.51 11.480 11.102 10.27
15 14.505 14.029 12.98 14.374 13.898 12.85 14.053 13.575 12.56
mm
6 151.16 147.32 136.3 149.68 145.85 134.9 146.41 142.54 131.8 145.11 141.27 130.6
8 202.34 196.60 181.8 200.43 194.69 180.1 195.96 190.20 175.9
9 227.38 220.75 204.2
10 252.93 245.29 226.9 250.54 242.90 224.7 244.98 237.29 219.5
12 301.09 291.54 269.7 298.12 288.57 266.9 291.59 281 .99 260.9
15 368.43 356.34 329.6 365.10 353.01 326.5 356.95 344.80 318.9
A Base Inside diameter Is a minimum pipe Inside diameter derived by subtracting a staUstlcal tolerance package from Iha pipe's average Inside diameter. Toa tolerance
package Is defined as the square root of the sum of squared standard manufacturing tolerances.
Average Inside diameter .. average outside diameter -2(1.06)1
Tolerance package• ,,Aa + 2 a2 + ca
wnere:
1 • minimum wall thickness (Table 1),
A • outside diameter tolerance (Table 1 ),
a • excess wall thickness tolerance= 0.061, and
C .a out-of-roundness tolerance.
The values for C were derived statistically from field measurement data and are given as follows for various sizes of pipe:
Value forC Nominal Size, In. In. mm
6 0.150 3.81
8 0.225 5.72
9 0.260 6.60
10 0.300 7.62
12 0.375 9.52
15 0.475 12.06
X2. RECOMMENDED LIMIT FOR INSTALLED DEFLECTI0N5 -* X2.1 Design engineers, public agencies, and others who
have the responsibility to establish specifications for max-
im um allowable limits for deflection of installed PVC sewer
pipe have requested direction relative to such a limit.
X2.2 PVC sewer piping made to this specification and
installed in accordance with Practice D 2321 can be expected
to perform satisfactorily provided that the internal diameter
338
of the barrel is not reduced by more than.~ of its b:i.r.:
inside diameter when measured not less than 30 d3)1
foUowing completion of installation.
'Supporting data can be obtained from ASTM Headquarters. Rcquesl ftV
17-1009.
,· ' ,.
:x
coa
C\'C:I
J
11
s
I [. ~ITT~ Designation: 0 1785 -96b An Amerlean National Slanclard
i
Standard Specification for
Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Plastic Pipe, Schedules 40, 80, and
1201
T~~ standard _Is lssu~d under the lixc~ ~esign:ition D 1785; th.e _number lmmc~i:itely followin1 the dcsign11tion indicates the ye111 or
onginal adopuon or, in the case or rc,·1s1on, the )'cnr oflast rev1S1on. A number m p:ircnthci.cs Indicates the )'Car or last rc:ippro,·:il. A
supcBCript epsilon (1) indiciucs nn editorial ch:msc since the In.st revision or re:ipprov:il.
This standard has bien apprOYtd f,,, use by agtndes of the Departnrtnt of Defense. Cons11/1 the DoD lnd;::c of Spi:cijica1/ons and
Standards for the specific >·ear of lssul! H"hil"h has been adopted by tht Depanme/11 of Defenst.
1, Scope
1.1 This specification covers poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC)
pipe made in Schedule 40, 80, and 120 sizes and pressure-
rated for water (see Appendix). Included are criteria for
classifying PVC plastic pipe materials and PVC plastic pipe,
a system of nomenclature for PVC plastic pipe, and require-
ments,t!nd test methods for materfols, workmanship, dimen·
sions, sustained pressure, burst pressure, nattening, and
extrusion quality. Methods or marking are also given.
1.2 The text or this specification references notes, foot-
notes, and nppendixes which pro\·ide explanatory material.
These notes and footnotes (excluding those in tables and
figures) shall not be considered a~ requirements of the
specification.
1.3 The values stated in inch-round units ure to be
n:gardcd us the standard. The \'Jlucs gi\'cn in p:1rcnLheses arc
for information only.
1.4 The r,)llowing ~tl'cty haz:mis ca\'cat pertains only to
the test methods p,,ni0n. Sc.:ti,rn ~. 111' this specification:
This standard d,il'.\' t:,i: f'lt!/•1•r1 IP addr,·s,· 11!! n/' tin• .\'l/lL'l\'
('(lt(t'l'rfl.\', f ( (: n.1 ·. tl.l'l't1, ·f,u t ·d u'ir i: ir ,· 11.,-. '. I I is ri,c (£'.\'/1/;t/S j ·
Nli1,1· ,!f' tl:e 11.1\'r 1!/ 1i1fs s1,mil1ml 111 ,·stah/ish llfJfl'CJpriatc
W!ft'f.\' llfld h,•a/rh ririi.·11:·,•.r and cl,011•rtni11,· th<' a11p/icabilir_1· ,!(
r,·.i:ulmo.ry /in:iwrint:., rri.-•r t,• :ul' r\ spccilic pn:caution:.i~
·;::i.tcmcnt is given in \',1t1: 7.
;'\:,in 1-C'P\T plast:, pi~~. S.:h.:duks ..lll and ~Ll. which wcr~
formerly ini::ludcd in this s;-.:dlkatiun. arc n,,w nwcn:d hy Sp,:cification
F.i.i1 .
Norn 2-The sustaim·d and bu~t pressure lest requirements, and thc
pn:ssurc ratings in the Appendi.,. arc cuh:ulatcd frum stress Yalues
obtained from tests made on pip,: ,l in. ( I 00 mm) and smaller. However,
tests conducted on pipe as large as 2-l-in. (600-mm) diameter have
shown these stress \·alues to be valid for larger diameter PVC pipe.
NOTE 3-PVC pipe made to this Sl)l:cilication is ortcn belled for use
as line pipe. For details of the sol\·cnt cement bell, sec Specification
D 2672 and for dct.a.ils of belled elastomcric joints. see Specifications
03139 and D 3212.
2. Reforcn"ced Documents
2.1 ASTM S1a11dards:
D 618 Practice for Conditioning Plastics and Electrical
Insulating Materials for Testing2
1 This spcdlic:iLion is umkr ihc jurisdiction or ASTM Commine.: F-17 on
l'lastit' Pipini: Systems and is lht direct respon~ibili1y or Subcommittee Fl 7,25 on
Vinyl B:ised Pipe. .
Current edition :ippro,·i;J D«. 10, 1996. Published Nov.:mb.:r 1997, Oriaioally
pub!ished :i.s D I 7HS -60. 1..ut prc1ious edition D l 785 -96:i".
2 Anmuil Buuk of ASTM S:a111JurJs, Vol 08.0 I.
33
D 15_98 Test Method for Time-to-Failure of Plastic Pipe
Under Constant Internal Pressure3 ·
D 1599 Test Method for Short-Ti me Hydraulic Failure
Pressure or Plastic Pipe, Tubing, and Fittings3
D 1600 Tenninology for Abbreviated Terms Relating to
Plastics1
D 1784 Specification for Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride)
(PVC) Compounds and Chlorinated Poly(Yinyl Chlo-
ride) (CPVC) Compounds2
D2122 Test Method for Determining Dimensions or
Thennoplnstic Pipe and Fittingsl
D 2152 Test Method for Degree of Fusion of Ext rm.hi
Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Pipe and Molded Fiuin!!~
hy Acetone 1 m mcrsion3 •
D 2672 Specitic:ition for Joints for IPS PVC Pipe Usin>.!
Solvent C'cmcn1J ·
D 2837 Test Method for Obtaining Hydrostatic Dc!>i);n
Busis for Thermoplastic Pipe f\1:1tcri:ils3
DJ I J9 S;ll.!\.'ilic::llion for Joints for Plastic Pressure Pi1w•.
Using Flexible El:.istomcrie Seals~
D 3212 Specilic::.llion for Joints for Dr:ii n and Scwl.!r l'l:.1"11.
Pires Using Flexible Elam~meric: Scals3
F 412 Terminology Rel:.iting lo Plastk Piping System·,·
F ..:..: I Sp\.•1.·i1ic:.ition for C'hlMin:1tcd Poly(Vinyl Chh•:·:.:
1CP\'('1 Pl:.1.~tic: Pipe. Sch..:Jules 40 and 80)
2.2 F,·t!1·r,!l Sta11dard
Fed. Std. 1\o. 123 Marking for Shipment (Civil Ag..:n:::
2.J .\/i/irar.1· Stanc/(lrc/:
MIL-STD-129 Marking for Shipment and Storage.,
2.4 ,-\'SF Standards:
Standard No. 14 for Plastic Piping Components and
Related Mntcria.ls5
Standard No. 61 for Drinking Water System Comp11-
nents-Hcalth Effects5
3. Terminology
3.1 Deji11itio11s-Definitions nre in accordance with Ter-
minology F 412 and abbreviations are in accordance wi I I:
Terminology D 1600, unless otherwise specified. The abbr~·-
viation for polr(vin}'I chloride) plastic is PVC.
3.2 Descriprivns of Terms Specific to This Standard:
3.2.1 h.rdrostatic design s1n•.1·s-thc estimated maximu 111
> ,·lnnuu/ Dv,•k uf AST.\/ S1a11Jards, Vol 08.0~.
• Available from Stand:irdiution Documcnll Order Desk, Bldg. 4 5<~·11011 1,.
700 Robbins Ave., Phil:idclphi:i, PA 1911 i-509~. Attn: !','PODS.
, Av:i.il:ib!c from the Nation:il Sanitation Fouod:itioa, P~O. Bol 1468, Ann
Aroor, Ml 48106.
tf <7~.1 (/ /,l/t:1 v11 0
~Hfl, D 1785
TABLE 1 Outside Diameters and Tolerancaa for PVC Piastre Pipe Schedules 40, 80, and 120, In. (mm)
Nominal Pipe Size
5
6
8
10
12
H
18
18
20
24
Outside Diameter
0.405 (10.29)
0.5.40 (13.72)
0.675 (17.14)
Ooa40 (21.34)
1.050 (26.67)
1.315 (33.4Q)'"
1.660 (42.16)
1.900 (48.26)
2.375 (60.32)
2.875 {73.02)
3.600 (88.90)
4,000 (·101 .60)
4,500 r 14.3~ 5.51!3 141.30
8.62~ ( 168.28)
B.825 (219.08)
10.750 (273.05)
12.750 (3.23.85)
14,000 (355.60
1MOO (t06.tO)
1B.OOO (457.201
2o;ooo 1soa.001
24.000 (609.BOI
Average
±0.004 (±0.10)
±0.004 (±0.10)
±0.004 (±0,10)
±0.004 (±0.10)
±0.004 (±0.10)
±0.005 (±0.13)
±0.005 (:1:0.13)
±0.008 (±0.15)
±0.006 (±0.15)
±0.007 (±0.18)
:!:0.008 (±0.20)
±0.00B (:1:0.20)
±0.009 (±0.23)
±0.010 (±0,25)
±0.011 (±0.28)
::0.015 (±0.38)
::0.015 (:1:0.38)
:!:0.015 (±0.38)
::0.015 (±0.38)
=0.019 (±0.48)
=0.019 (:t0.48)
=0.023 (:1:0.58)
:0.031 (::0.79)
Tolerances
Maximum Oul-ol-Roundness (m8)(1mum minus minimum diameter)
Schedule 40 sizes 3'i'l In. and
over; Sehedule BO sizes B In.
and over
" 0.100 (2.54)
0.100 (2.54)
0.100 (2.54)
0.100 (2.54)
0.150 (3.81)
0.150 (3.81)
0.150 (3.81)
0.200 (5.08)
0.320 (8.13)
0.360 (9.1-1)
0.400 (10.2)
0.480 (12.2)
Schedule 40 sizes 3 In, and less·
Schedule BO sizes 6 In. end less:
Schedule 120 sizes all '
0.016 (0.41)
0.016 (0.41)
O.D16 (o.41)
0.016 (0.41)
0.020 (0.51)
0.020 (0.51)
0.024 (0.61)
0.024 (0.61)
0.024 (0.61)
0.030 (0.76)
0.030 (0.76)
0.030 (0.76)
0.030 (0.76)
0.080 (1.52)
0.070 (1.78)
0.090 (2.29)
0.100 (2.54)
0.120 (3.05)
TABLE 2 Wall Thicknesses and Tolerances lor PVC Plastic Pipe, Schedules 40, 80, and 120,A,B in. (mm)
W~II Thickness"
Nominal Pipe Sch<'dllle 40 Sc.'1edule 80 Schedule 120 Size
Minimum Tolerance Minimum Tolerance Minimum Tolerance
v, D.06B 11 ,73) +0.020 (+0.51} o .. 09512.41) +0.020 (+0.51)
t/, 0,088 (2.2J) +0.020 (+O.SIJ o., 19 (3.02) +0.020 (+0.51)
\i 0.091 (2.311 +0.0201+0.51) 0.126 (3.20) +0.020 (+0.51)
I I 0.10912.7i) +0.020 (+0.51) 0.147 (3.73) +0 020 (+0.51) 0.170 (,t.32) +0.020 (+0.51)
s·~ 0.113 (2.Bil .. 0.020 (+0.51) 0,154 (3;91) +0.020 (+0.51) 0.170 (4.32) +0.020 (+0.51)
o. 133 (3.38) +0.020 (+0.51) 0,179 (<IMi) +0.021 (+0.53) 0.200 (5.08) +0.024 (+0.61)
11.'t 0.140 (3.55) +0.020 (+0.51) 0.19 1 (4.85) +0.023 (+0.58) 0.215 (5.46) +0.026 (+0.66) ,•j~ 0.145 (3.6i) +0.020 (+0.51) 0.200 (5.08) +0.024 (+0.61) 0.225 (S. 72) +0.027 (+0.6B)
2 0.154 (~.91) +0.020 (+0.51) 0.218 (5.54) +0.026 (+0,66) 0.250 (6.35) +0.030 (+0.76)
2'/ti 0.203 (5.1 ~) +0.024 (+0.81) 0.276 (7 .01) +0.033 (+0.B4) 0.300 (7.62) +0.036 (+0.91)
3 0,216 (5.49) +0.026 (+0.66) 0:300 (l.62) +0.036 (+0.91) 0.350 (8.89) +0.042 (+1.07)
31/, 0.226 (5.74) +0.027 l+0.68) 0.318 (8.08) +0.038 (+0.96) 0.350 (B.89) +0.042 (+1.07)
4 0.23716.021 +0.028 (,t0.71) 0.337 (8.56) +0.040 (+1.02) 0.437 (11.10) +0.052 (+1.32) 5 0.258 6.55 +0.031 (+d.79) 0.375 (9.52) +0.045 (+1.14) 0.500 (12. 70) +0.060 (+1.52) e 0.280 (7.11)' +0.03,t(+0.86) 0.432 (10.97) +0.052 (+1.32) 0.562 (14.27) +0.067 (+1.70)
8 0.322 (8. t SJ +0.039 (+0.99) 0.500 (12.70) +0.060 (+1.52) 0.716 (18.24) +0.086 (+2.18) 10 0.365 (9.27) +0.044 (+1.12) 0,593 (15.06) +0.071 (+1.80) 0.843 (21.41) +0.101 (+2.56)
12 0.406 (10.31) +0.049 (+1.24) 0.687 (17.<ISJ +0.082 (+2.08) 1.000 (25.40) +0.120 (+3.05)
14 O.Q7(11.10) +0.053 (+ 1.3SJ 0.750 (19.05) +0.090 (+2.29)
16 0.500 (12.70) +0.060 (+1 .5~) o.643 ,:n.4·11 +0.101 (+2.57)
18 0,582 (14.27) -+0.067 (+1.70) 0,.837 (23.BO) +0.112 (+2.84)
20 0.593 (15.06) +0:011 (+1.80) 1',l>a1 (26.19) +0.124 (+3.15)
24 0.667 (17.45) +0.082 (+2.08) U18(30.94) +0,146 (+3.71)
"' The minimum l!fthe lowosl wall l),lckness ol the pipe-at any etoss secllon. Tho maximum permitted wan thickness, at 8/lY cross section, Is the minimum wall thickness
plus tha &taled to)or1111ce. AH tolerances llfe on the plus side of the minimum requlroment
0 Thosa dimensions oonlonn 10 nominal tPS dlm9nslon,, witl'I tho oxceptlon Iha( Schedule 120 wan thickness lor pipe sizes 1/a to 31/a In. (12.5 to 87 .5 mm), Inclusive,
ore, special PVC plastic-pipe sins.
36
. .. ..
TAI
No
'
following
IL AQL
2.5
2 2.5
I 1.5
I"
1d pooled for
~~l~ Designation: D 1784 -92 An American National Stan
Standard Specification for
Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Compounds and Chlorinated
Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (CPVC) Compounds 1
This standard is issued under the lixed dcsign:ition D I 78~; the number immediately following the designation indica1es the year of
origin~l ndoption or, In the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in p11rcn1hcses indicates the year of Inst rcnpproval. A
supermipl epsilon (1} Indicates an cditoriol change since the last revision or rcapproval.
This spc:cfjication has betn approved/or 11sr b;-agtncles of 1h~ Depart111ertt of Defenst. Consult lhe DoD Index of Spte(/icatlon.r and
Standards for the specific year of Issue w/1/c/1 has bee11 adopted b)· the Department of Defense.
1, Scope
1.1 This specification covers rigid PVC and CPVC com-
pounds intended for general purpose use in extruded or
molded fonn, including piping applications involving special
chemical and acld resistance or heat resistance, composed of
poly(vinyl chloride}, chlorinated poly(vinyl chloride). or
vinyl chloride copolymers containing at least 80 % vlnyl
chloride, and the necessary compounding ingredients. The
compounding ingredients may consist of lubricants, stabi-
lizers, non-poly(vinyl chloride) resin modifiers, pigments and
inorganic fillers.
NOTE 1-Selc:ction of specific compounds for particular end us.:s or
applications requires consideration of other characteristics such as
thennal propenics. optical properties, weather resistance. etc. Sixcifi..:
requirements and test methods for these properties shall be by mutu:!J
agreement between the purchaser and the seller.
1.2 Rigid PVC compounds intended for pipe, fittings and
other piping appurten:1nces arc covered in Specifications
D 3915 and D 4396.
1.3 Rigid PVC compounds intended for building product
applications are covered in Specification D 4216.
I A The values stated in SI units are to be regarded as the
standard. The rnlues given in parentheses an: for informa-
. tion onh·.
1.5 The following safety hazards caveat pertains only tt>
the test methods p<:>nion. Section l I, of this specification:
This srandard docs 1101 p11rpor1 lO address all of the sa/i?IJ'
proble111s, if"''-"· assod<aed ll'ilh its use. It is the re.spo11si-
bifi1y of the 11ser of this standard to establish approprim£'
safety and /,(!a/th practices and determine the applicabilit.1· of
regulatory /imitations prior to use.
NoTE 2-This spcci!ica1ion is similar in content (but not technically
equivalent) to ISO 1163-1: 1985 and ISO 1163-2: 1980.2
2, Referenced Documents
2. I ASTM Standards:
D 256 Test Methods for Impact Resistance of Plastics and
Electrical Insulating Materials'
1 This sp(cilication iJ und(r the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee D-lU on
Plasrics ond is the direct rcsponsibili1y ofSubcommittc( 020.15 on Thermopl:utic
Matcri:ils.
Current edition appro\·cd Oct 15, 1991. Published December 1992. Originally
· published as D I 78~ -60 T. Lost previous edition D 17114 -90.
2 Av:i!lobl.: from American N:ufon:il Standards lnstitule, 11 W. 42nd S1 .. 13th
Floor, New York, NY 10036.
l Annual n,wk of AST,\( StumJards, Vol 08.01.
553
D 471 Test Method for Rubber Property-Effect
Liquids4
D 543 Test Method for Resistance of Plastics to Chemic
Reagents3
D 618 Practice for Conditioning Plastics and Electric
Insulating Materials for Testing3
D 635 Test Method for Rate ofBuming and/or Extent a1
Time of Burning of Self-Supporting Plastics in a Ho;
zonta\ Position3
D 638 Test Method for Tensile Properties of Plastics'
D 64S Test Method for Deflection Temperature of Pl:mi
Under Flexural Load 3
D 790 Test Methods for Flexural Properties of L'nrei:
forced and Reinforced Plastics and Electrical Jnsu!:itir
tvf ate rials'
D 883 Tenninology Relating to Plastics)
D 1600 Terminology for Abbreviated Tenns Rclatin5 1
Plastics'
D 1898 Practice for Sampling of Plastics5
D 1921 Test ?vfethods for Particle Size (Sieve An:ilysis 1 c
Pl:mic l'vfaterials~
D 3892 Practice for Packaging/Packing of Plastics'
D 39 l 5 Specification for Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (P\"C.' 1 :1n
Related Plastic Pipe and Fitting Compounds 10, Pre:
sure Applications7
D-l:! 16 Specification for Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride! ( P\'C
:.ind Related Plastic Building Products Compounds-
D 4396 Specification for Rigid Poly(Vinyl Chloride) (P\'C
and Related Plastic Compounds for Non-Pressure Pi~
ing Products'
D 5260 Classification for Chemical Resistance of Pol~
(Vinyl Chloride) (PVC) Homopolymer and Copolyme
Compounds and Chlorinated Poly(Vinyl Chloride
(CPVC) Compounds6
3. Terminology
3.1 De[tnitions-Delinitions are in accordance with Defi
nitions D 883 and abbreviations with Tenninology D 160(
unless otherwise indicated.
4. Clnssif'ication
4.1 t-.·feans for selecting and identifying rigid PVC corn
4 .~11111111/ Book of AST,\/ Sra11da,d1, Vol 09.01.
'h11111al Book o/ ,ISTM S1a11darcil·, Vol 08.02.
6 .~ •1111wl Book of ASTM Stanclardl·, Vol OS.OJ.
',,1,111ua/ Dook of ASTM Stuncla,cls, Vol 03.().1.
1/IJ
~ID}) D 1784 ,.,.
TABLE 1 Class Requirements for Rigid Poly(Vlnyl Chloride) Compounds-
Nore-The minimum property value will determine tha cell number although Iha maximum expected value may fall within a higher cell
Oesig--Call Limit~ nation Property and lkllt Order 5~ -No. 0 1 2 a .. 6 7 8
1 Base resin unspecified poly(vlnyl chlorlna led vinyl copolymer -chloride) poly(vinyl t homo-chlortda)
polymer
2 Impact strength (lzod)
min;
J/mol notch unspecJlled <34.7 34.7 so., 266.9 533.8 800.7
lt·lb/ln. or notch <0.65 0.65 1.5 5.0 10.0 15.0
3 Tensile strength, min:
MPa unspecified <34.5 34.5 41.4 48.3 55.2
psi <5 000 5 000 6 000 7 000 B 000
4 Modulus ol elasticity In
tension, min: ' MPa unspeclffed <1930 1930 2206 2482 275B f 3034 ! psi <280 000 280 000 320 000 360 000 400 000 · 440 000
5 Oenectlon temperature
under load, min,
1.82 MPa (264 psQ: •c unspecified <55 55 60 70 80 90 100 110 : "F <131 131 140 158 176 194 212 230 Flammability A " "' .. A A "' "' "
"'All compounds covered by this specification when tested In accordance with Method D 635 shall yield the lollowlng results: average extent or burning or <25 mer.;
average time of burning of <1 O s.
pounds are provided in Tables J and 2. The propenies
enumerated in Table I and the tests defined are expected to
provide identification of the compounds selected. They are
not necessarily suitable for direct application in design
because of differences in shape of part, size, loading, environ-
mental conditions. etc.
4.2 Classes are designated by the cell number for each
property in the order in which they are listed in Tabk I
induding n suffix le1ter specifying the requirements for
chemical resistance. as shown in Table 2.
:-.:011: J-Th.: chemi.::il resistance requir.:mcnts 111 Tnbh: :! ar.:
includ,:d to provide id~ntffi.::ition or th.: compounds sclect.:d. Th.:y ar.:
not ncccs~ril>· suitnbl~ for rJting of application chemical n:sist:m.:.:.
Non, 4-The manner in which selected mat.:rials ar,: ii.kntilicd I:"
this classification system is illustrat~d by a Cl:lss· 12454-13 rigid P\"C'
com ound h,n'ing the rollowin re uirements n l.:s I nnd 21:
Class
t,ll·111ilk111i,m:
Pol>·(~·in>I chlorid~) hom;,pal)·m,r _____ ___,
Pmpt•rty a11<l ,l//11/11111111 I 'alur:
lm~ct mength (lzod) ()4.7 J/m (0.65
2 4 5 J P.
rt·lbr/in.»--------------'
Tensile stength (4S.3 MPa (7000 psi))·---------'
Modulus or cl.isticity in tension (l7SS MPa ·;t (400 000 psi),_ _____________ ___,
Denection temperature under load (70'C (15S'f)...__ ________________ __,
Chemical resistance (meets the requirements
or Suffi:\ B in Table 2
NOTE 5-The ccll,type fonnn1 provides the means for identificnllon
and close charac1erization and specification ofmalerial properties. alone:
or in combination, for a broad range of materials. This t>·pe format.
however. is subject to possible misapplication since unobtainable prop-
erty combinations can be selected if the user is not familiar with com-
mercially available materials. The manufacturer should be consulted.
4.3 Type and grade number designations have been
widely used to define the minimum physical properties and
chemical resistance requirements of certain commercial
classes of rigid PVC compounds. Table XI. I in the Ap-
55~
pendix lists these type and grade numbers and the com-
sponding class numbers selected from Table I and 2. Tr.!
classes for previous types and grades of poly(vinyl chloric!
vinyl acetate) compounds are listed in Table X2.1 in th~
Appendix.
4.4 Product application chemical resistance when speci·
tied shall be classified according to the Classification Sectio~
of Classification D 5260.
5. Ordering Jnform:ttion
5.1 The purchase order. or inquiry for these mJt~n:i::.
shall state the specification number and identify th.:-d:1:.;
selected. for example, D 1784. Cl:m 12454-B.
5.2 Funher definition. as may be required for th~ f,:;.
TABLE 2 Suffix Deslgnalion for Chemlcal Resistance
Solution A B C 0
H2SO• (93 %)-14 days Immersion at 55 :!: 2"C:
Change In weight:
Increase, max, '!II 1.0" 5.0"' 25.0 NA'
Oecrease, max, i;. 0.1"' 0.1"' O. 1 NA
Change In flexural yield strength:
Increase, max, % 5.0'" 5.0.. 5.0 NA
Decrease. max, '!II 5.0.. 25.0"' 50.0 N,~
H2SO, (80 lli-30 days immersion at 60 ± 2°c:
Change in weight:
Increase, max, ,r. NA NA 5.0 15:J
Decrease, max,% NA NA 5.0 o. I
Change in nexural yield strength:
Increase, max, % NA NA 15.0 25,0
Decrease, max, :lo NA NA 15.0 25,0
ASTM Oil No. 3-30 days immersion at 23°C:
Change In weight:
Increase, max, ~ 0.5 1.0 1.0 1 O.~
Decrease, max, ,. 0.5 1.0 1.0 ~
"'Specimens washed In running water and dried by an air blast OI o~
mechanical means shall show no sweating within 2 h atter rernQval from th• f;.
bath. •.f ·
11 NA .. not applicable. · ;-\
f,
~
6
F
p
a
n
SI
e:
b
IC
SI
51
7
SJ
(1
re
8.
rr
p:
Ir
I\'
S:
A
cc
9,
pt
fo
fo
s~
ac
se
1(
ct
cc
Pr
!e
,re
Physical Properties of Harvel Rigid PVC & CPVC Pipe
ASTM PVC PVC Harvat
Properties Test 1120 2110 CPVC Method (Normal Impact) (HI lmpect) 4120
Moch1mlcel
Specific Gravity, gtcsn' 0792 1.40:t: ,02 1.37:1:.02 1 55±.02 Tensllo Strenglh at 73• F psi 0638 7,450 6,400 8,000
Modulus Elastlchy In Tension, psi at 73• F 0638 ~o.ooo ~ :160,000
Comp(essive Strongth, psi at 73• F 0695 ~ 9,000
Flexural Strength at 73• F psi 0790 ,;o • 15,100
h:od Impact ft. lb.Jin. notch at 73° F 0256 .75 10,9 1.5 Hardness Outometer D 02240 82±3 78:1:3
Hardness Rockwell A 0785 110-120 119
Thermal
Cootficient of Thermal Conductivity
(Cal.) (cm} X 10 .. c,n 3.5 4.5 0.96 (cm,?.J;ec.) tJC) Co& 1 nt ol near Expansion 0696 5.2 9.9 6,2 x 1 o·• cm1c:m •c
x 104 in/in •p 2.9 S.5 3,4
Heal Distortion Tempera.Me, DS4a •Fat 264 psi 170 14o 217
SpGclfic Heat. Cal.l"Clgm 02766 0.25 0.25
Upper Service Temp. Umit 'F 140 140 200
FlammabUlty
Average Time of Burning (sec.) 0635 <5 <5 <5
Avorage Extent ol Burning (mm) c:10 <15 <10 Flame Spread Index E162 <10 <10 Flame Spread E84 10-25 4-18
Flash Ignition 7:JO•F 900°F Smoke Developed· 600-1000 9-169 Flammability (.062") UL•94 V-0 v-n. sve. 5VA Softening Starts, approx. °F 250 295 Maierial Become Viscous, °F 350 395
Material Carbonizes, •F 425 ·450
Limiting Oxygen Index (LOI) 60
Eleetr1cal
Dlelectric Strength, volts/mil 0149 1,413 ,,oas 1,250
Dielectric Conslsnt 0150
60 eps at 30"C 3.70 3.90 1 ooo cps at 3o•c 3.62 3.31
Power Factor% o,so
so cps at 30°C 1.25 2.85 1 ooo cps at 3o•c 2.82 3.97
Volume Resistivity at 95°C,
ohms/cm"l O" 1.2 2.4 Harvel Rigid Pipe is non-electrolytic.
Olhor Propert1e,
Water Absorption, 'Y, lncreas&-
2Ahts. at 2s•c 0570 0.05 0.10 0.03 Ugh\ Transmls.sion E:300 Opaque Opaque Ught STabllily Excellent Excellent Effect of Sunlight Sllght Daikening Slight Oarl<.enlr,g
Color (Standard) Dark Grey light Grey Mudium Grey
Material <All Classirication --·~ ASTM 01784 16334-0 234,47.9
ASTM 03915 C.}t~l 14341-1 23444-4
ASTM D 1764 and 03915 rel er to similar compounds. Tho maJor dllferonco is !hat the alphobolic-al siielh place designation
rotors to ·corrosion resistance under ASTM 01784, and tho ~XU\ place do~ignation 1.1nder 03915 refers to the hydrostatic
design stress. In addition, 03915 also places upper 6rnits lor values In the second ttlrough tho fifth place d,~ignatlons.
"T&Sts performed on pipe size, 314-. 4~ with a single pipe llltposed each test. Soma of the CPVC pipes ware Hator filled
and these rosulted in rho lowor r;moko dcwalopmenl values. · ·
NOTE: Harvol CPVC pipo ls axtrud&d from Corz.an .. CPVC compounds rnanufaetured by BF Goodrich Spociallt/ Polymers
and Chomicals Division. \-{ 1~ p \J f:. L f' L. A ,:. 'T \ l > M A rJ u ;::-11 '-1 0 ?...., R.
\') 0 (. VI\/\ E:; iV1 ,'r1 ( o N
26 A--ff d{/(,1,I efv( F ~ 'I,
.I
be small compared to the -pressure due to the f11l, the vertical pressure on
the top of the pipe can be assumed to be equal to the unit weight of the
refuse fill multiplied by the distance from top of fill to top of pipe,
thus:
v.2:2 ,3 Perfot"ated Pipe
Perforations wi ll reduce the effective length of pipe ava11ab1e to c1rry lo~d~
and r e.si st dufl ection. The effect of perforations can be talcen into account uy usinO an increased ,oild per nominal unit 1ength of the Pi'Pe, If lp equah
the cumulative length in inches of perforat'ions per foot of pipu, the increas,
~d vertical stress to be used equalsi
.•
/2 er:~~61.X.e: ~P.d; M,(JNUl4 l.. ~~-IJ
ii t. lA)INt; c,p a.J.AJ-.t~ ;'~M:JC)I\.VJh'/1
/J;..J,,) .0 ~ /)dS,1 (.. .iC,( <:, (C,. Ir l@s r~
S"~l'n::-,,usc,(!. 11fo
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Energy
Client: Fuels Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
(peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
(originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
Signature
Printed Na
Title Project Engineer
Signature ~---
Title Project Engineer
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By
SC0634. PunctureCalcSA-58.2012121 O.F.calc.docx
Checked by
Geosyntec t>
Project/
Proposal No.:
Task No.
consultants
SC0634
02
12 lic. l,J..
Date
Date
Date
Approval
Geosyntec e>
consultants
Page 1 of 8
Written by: R. Fl~nn Date: 11/7/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1d~11..
Client: EF Project:
OBJECTIVE
Cells SA and 5B Project/ SC0634
Proposal No.:
PUNCTURE EVALUATION
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
Task 02
No.:
The project involves placement of a triple liner system for the base of Cells 5A and SB
at the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. The proposed liner system is shown in
Attachment A. The objective of this calculation is to evaluate the maximum particle
sizes of soil/aggregate materials adjacent to the geomembrane that will not puncture or
damage the geomembrane.
SUMMARY OF ANALYSIS
The analyses suggest that the following maximum particle sizes and geotextile mass per
unit areas will be required:
Maximum Maximum
Component of Liner Particle Protrusion Cusliion Material Size (in) Height (in)
Slimes drain system over 1 NIA 16 oz/yd2
geomembrane
Leak detection system (LDS) 1 NIA 16 oz/yd2
over geomembrane
Geomembrane over prepared NIA 0.7 NIA subgrade
SC0634.PunctureCalc5A-58.20121210 .F.calc.docx
Geosyntec '>
consultants
Page 2 of 8
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: 11/7/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1i}1s(1'l-
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Proposal No.: No.:
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed triple liner system will be comprised of the following components on the
side slopes, from top to bottom:
• primary 60-mil smooth HDPE geomembrane;
• secondary 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner® geomembrane;
• tertiary 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner® geomembrane; and
• prepared subgrade.
On the cell bottom the proposed triple liner system with be comprised of the following
components, from top to bottom:
• primary 60-mil smooth HDPE geomembrane;
• 300-mil geonet
• secondary 60-mil smooth HDPE geomembrane;
• tertiary 60-mil HDPE Drain Liner® geomembrane; and
• prepared subgrade.
The slimes drain header pipe will be placed on top of the primary geomembrane with
cushion geotextile and drainage aggregate placed above (Attachment A). Two Leak
Detection Systems (LDS) will be installed (1) between the primary geomembrane and
the secondary geomembrane and (2) between the secondary geomembrane and tertiary
geomembrane (Attachment A). The LDS will consist of a PVC pipe surrounded by
aggregate and wrapped in a 16 oz/yd2 geotextile. The tertiary geomembrane will be
installed over prepared subgrade.
The tailings deposits are anticipated to be similar to silt with an average maximum wet
unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pc:t) (See slope stability calculation for this
value). For conservatism, we have assumed that a maximum of 43 ft of tailing deposits
plus 9 feet of cover soil may be present. Therefore, the design overburden pressure is
52 ft x 125 pcf = 6,500 pounds per square foot (psf) or 311 kilopascals (kPa).
SC0634.PunctureCalc5A-58.2012121 O.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec 0
consultants
Page 3 of 8
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 11/7/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcornn Date: ,~1~\,t.
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Proposal No.: No.:
APPROACH
LDS Trenches
The geomembranes will be under-and/or over-lain by a nonwoven cushion geotextile to
protect against puncture from the underlying and/or overlying LDS gravel. The
approach by Koerner (1997) was used to evaluate the required properties of the cushion
geotextile. According to this approach, the important parameters that affect the puncture
protection of geomembranes are: overlying pressure, mass per area of the geotextile,
and the particle size and shape of the material overlying the geotextile. For the analysis
herein, the overlying pressure and the mass per unit area of the geotextile are given and
the maximum particle size is evaluated for the geotextile.
Subgrade and Geomembrane
The tertiary geomembrane will be installed directly on the prepared subgrade.
Evaluation of the maximum allowable particle size for the soil materials located directly
against these geomembranes is calculated using the methods presented in Giroud et al.
(1995). According to the analysis by Giraud et al. (1995), a relationship can be made
between the failure strength of a geomembrane in a laboratory probe test and the failure
pressure of a geomembrane in the field when loaded by a water pressure. Attachment C
presents portions of the Giroud et al. (1995) paper for use herein.
ANALYSES
LDS Trenches and Slimes Drain Header Pipe
Narejo et al. (1996, Attachment B) present the following equation for evaluating
geotextile puncture protection of 60 mil (1.5 mm) HDPE geomembrane:
(Attachment B)
where:
H = cone height (mm), which corresponds to predicted effective protrusion height,
which equals one-half maximum stone size.
SC0634.PunctureCalc5A-5B.2012121 O.F .calc.docx
Geosyntec f.>
consultants
Page 4 of 8
Written by: R. Flynn Date: l 1/7/11. Reviewed by:: G. Corcoran Date: ,~1e\12.
CJJent; EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project/ SC0634 flisk 02
Proposal No.: No.:
MA = mass per unit area geotextile (g/m2)
= 16 oz/yd2 = 542 g/m2 (slimes drain and LDS)
P allow = maximum long term allowable pressure
(Attachment B)
where: MFs, MFrc, MFA = modification factors (discussed below)
FScR, FSceo = partial factor of safety va!l}es {discussed below)
P;110w = allowable pressure on geoinembr~
= {FS ~pno1unlffolil pn:~~ur")
where: FS = .global factor of safely, 3.0
= 31.1 kPa
B)
P actual field pressure
P' allow
MFs =
MF'pc=
= (311)(3) = 933 kPa
sh~pe factor:
1.0 (assume angular particles)
protrusion configuration:
1.0 (assume isolated protrusions)
soil arching:
t .0 (asstune none)
SC0634.PuncturcCaloSA·SB,20l212t0.F.calc.docx
(Attachment B).
(Attachment B)
(Attachment B)
(Attachment
(Attachment B)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 5 of 8
Written by: R. Flvnn Date: 11/7/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1 u (9\11.-
Client: EF
FScR =
FScso=
Project: Cells 5A and 5B Project/
Proposal No.:
partial factor of safety for creep:
for H> 12 mm, FSCR = 1.3
SC0634
partial factor of safety for chemical and
biological degradation:
1.5 (based on aggressive environment
for polypropylene geotextiles in LDS
and slimes drain)
Solving for Pauow provides:
Panow = (933) (1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0) (1.3 x 1.5)
P allow = 1,820 kPa
Solving for H, the predicted effective protrusion height, provides:
H2 = 450MA
pallow
-(450(542)).Yi _ _ . Hcushion -1820 -11.6 mm-0.5 m
Task 02
No.:
(Attachment B)
(Attachment B)
The predicted effective protrusion height equals one half the maximum stone size.
Therefore, the maximum stone size for the gravel to be placed around the slimes drain
and in the LDS is 2 x 0.5 inches, or 1.0 inches. We recommend the maximum particle
size for construction be 1 inch for the slimes drain and LOS.
SC0634.PunctureCalc5A-SB .2012121 O.F .calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 6 of 8
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 11/7/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1zlr9!,1..
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Proposal No.: No.:
Subgrade and Geomernbrane
Giroud's equation (Giroud et al. 1995) is used to calculate the maximum subgrade
protrusion height. The relationship is as follows (Attachment C)
where:
A. X d .,·,m1111d X pp = Fp X Z ePeak
(GM.v d p X tGMp
= term that characterizes the stone arrangement
= 0.87 for densely packed stones (Attachment C)
<ls, round = the stone size [to be solved]
PP = field pressure, kPa
= 311 kPa
ZePeak = 0.749, function of E defined by
£ = sln-i Ze -1; e=strain at yield, 13% (Attachment D)
Ze
toM,s = toMp = thickness of the geomembrane in the application and the
probe test, respectively
= 1.5 mm (60 mil)
Fp = 95 lb= 422 N, puncture resistance as reported for 60-mil
HDPE geomembrane (Attachment D)
Fp' = ;;s where IFS= FScr X FSid x FScd x FSbd
Factor of Safety for Creep, FScr = 1.5
F' p
Factor of Safety for Installation Damage, FSid = 2.0
Factor of Safety for Chemical Degradation, FScd = 2.0
Factor of Safety for Biological Degradation, FSbd = 1.0
422N = =70N 1.5 X2 X2 X1
SC0634.PunctureCalc5A-SB.20121210.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 7 of 8
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: 11/7/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: \d1~\ 1i-
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Proposal No.: No.:
dp = diameter of probe
= 8 mm used in laboratory puncture test according to ASTM D
4833
Therefore, solving Giroud's equation from above:
d -Fp X z &l'Ullk X laMS
o·,ro1111d -d ? p PX11,X .P
d = 70 N x0.749 x l.5mm
·s,n,,md 8mm x 0.87 x 31 lkPa
ds,round = 36 mm= 1.40 in.
Therefore, the maximum particle size of the sub grade should be 1.4 in. A maximum
protrusion size of 0.7 in. will be specified for the subgrade.
NOTE TO TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
For practical construction and CQA purposes, the calculated maximum particle sizes
and protrusion heights of the soil components of the liner are rounded down to a
convenient magnitude. The subgrade will be rolled and compacted; therefore, the
maximum protrusion height (instead of maximum particle size) is required for the
technical specifications. The specifications should reflect the following information:
Soil Component of Liner Maximum Protrusion Maximum Particle Size
Height (in.) (in.)
Drainage aggregate NIA 1
Prepared subgrade 0.7 NIA
SC0634.PunctureCalcSA-SB.2012121 O.F. calc.docx
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 8 of 8
Written by: R.Fl1:no Date: 11/7/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: \ ti ~,,2.
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Proposal No.: No.:
REFERENCES
Agru Product Data: High Density Polyethylene Drain Liner
Giroud, J.P., Badu-Tweneboah, K., and Soderman, K.L. (1995) "Theoretical Analysis
of Geomembrane Puncture," Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 6,
pp.1019-1048
Koerner, RM., Wilson-Fahmy, R.F. and Narejo, D. (1996) "Puncture Protection of
Geomembranes Part III: Examples", Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 5,
pp. 655-675.
Narejo, D., Koerner, R.M. and Wilson-Fahmy, R.F. (1996) "Puncture Protection of
Geomembranes Part II: Experimental", Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No.
5, pp. 629-653.
Wilson-Faluny, RF., Narejo, D., and Koerner, RM. (1996) "Puncture Protection of
Geomembranes Part I, Theory", Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp.
605-628.
SC0634.PunctureCalcSA-5B.20121210.F.calc,docx
• ! !
t
i I
I' I ~ ffi
I ~
'.JJJMl.GEQt.ET
eJOMILI-IFE GEOMEMBRANE. ~N '""'
,. ~ ~-~~~ \~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
~.~ ~~-:-~~.,
9 DETAIL
">/:,'~"'
~''*.. "-S ~· -~-·,,,,~~ "' ~·~--. ~.~
10 DETAIL
"'" ,,, ~ ,, ... _,,
03A.03S.04A.04B BASE LINER SYSTEM 03A03B.04A.04B SIDE SLOPE LINER SYSTEM ,:,.lif,£r•r
LL .. ": ·; ..
' 1-,__j
Ir°"'
• I:.·. : LG
111 ... , l-,__j
N v•1
tl.!'111 t>'I ,,..,
SC6.LE1'•'Z
~'~·--~ --... -·---·-~~,_ --, ---
CONCRETE PIPE~
"""""~
12
04A.049
DETAIL
SECONDARY LEAK DETECTION
RISER PENETRATION
OCALE 1"•2'
O::,.,.,E PIPE['D
-.....0-T ~
14
04A,04B
DETAJL
SLIMES DRAIN RISER
PENETRATION
, .. 1
'S";,111:·11&~.0ti::f"lt)l'.NOft~M"Dtw~·:tt:·:a:s.i,
1
... -··
'~~I.. ·.~,~~
'~ '~) ~
toE~&.O!lf.
r--22' ACCESS FIOAD
l L O~N)
~I. l-''
~\'l l'
11A\ DETAIL 116\ DETAIL
03A,03B,04A.049,05.~.09 ,/ ANCHOR TRENCH 03)\,_039/ ACCESS ROAD & ANCHOR TRENCH
.,
""-I• "• •,
SCALE I" •7
Sl.1J1'1.ESS STEELBAHDGI..AMP
~ETEPIPEG\
9..J?PORT ~
13
04A,04B
DETAIL
PRIMARY LEAK DETECTION
SYSTEM RISER PENETRATION
SCALE 1""2
SCALE 1"•2'
,, ........ ~ ~~ I~~ ~~ ,;----
/,/\. '
TCE.OFSl.OPE
.....
1 ctcTAILSARESHOM-1 TO SCALE INOICATEDEXQ::PT F~THE
GEOSYNTHETICS W.JCM ARE 9iOV',N AT AN EXACGffiATEO SCAlEfo.;:Q.ARrrv
~ ANO-IOR TRSIICHES MAY 9ECONSTRIJCTEDWTI-IA MAXIMUM
DEPTH OF 3 5 FEET WTH UP TO 1 FOOT OF BACl<FILL BET'M:EN
EACH GEOMEMSP.ANE lN 8JTTOM OF ANCHOR TRENCH
) PREPAAE0SlroRADEATCEU. l3ASESHAL.1.CONSISTOF AT LEAST &-INCHES OF ~L OVERL Yt;G SAI.OSTONE TN ACCORDANCE wn, SECTIONS 02200 ANO 0'2220 ~ THE TEO-INICAL SPECIFICATIONS ALL LOOSE (81..ASiED 0:::: RIPPEOJ SOI.. Ar,,() ROCK SHALL BE REMOVEO TO EXPOSE COMPETENT SOIL/ ROCK PRIOR TO PLACN; ENGtfEERIIIG FILL
!Attachment A( 1/2)
6~! PVCSCHECME<OPVC
-11~·' HOLES STAGGERED EVERY 12 INCHES
/ ' .--'\ I >
Geosyntecl>
co"""'3nts !GIN=...~~D> eF, ... ·---~
15
07,06
--1--0,·
DETAIL
PERFORATED PIPE ~CALE 1·; 1·
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCT/ON
NIS_..._YWOlaE=..0 ,O,,.....,Clf()-,,0,0 <:ONSf~UMl,£:g:VUD
-.-.-
LINER SYSTEM DETAILS I
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND SB
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
GTC
MMC
GTC
.lAMJARY2013
,-... SC0634-05-07
_§_~__!Q__
-1
~ ~ ; ~ ~ • V • i !
1 ! I l r
I ! ~~·
! Ill""'
I Ill-""
Ill .
DETAIL
'""'""' SPl'ICEC1 PER10 FT ON 80TH S10E9
..... _
Ol0'4.~-:UOCTNI ~ ra,l;f.;;.,.,.....C-~~m,,...
D'>~ _,,,
17 DETAIL
...........
SEWN SEAM PlANVIEY(
PLAN VIEW
&OMILl't)PEGEOMEMBMNE-SMOcrn-i
300 MILGEONeT'
LEAK DETECTION SYSTEM TRENCHES 04A,04B SLIMES DRAIN HEADER eo MIL HOPE GEOMEMBRANE • SMOOTH SCA1.J;11"• (
BUIClflAHGE
"''""""
"!" ""' ....
SECONOAAY LEAK DE1'ECTIOH SYSTEM RltER
(N0TE2)
PRNliRY LEAK OETECTION sYSTEM R16EA
(NOTE2)
fl,;MQ DRAIN SYSTEM RISER
(N0TE2)
a::.iu!., • ..,,.oOl!Cu:(2o1·~~t>cm_1_~~·1'1"1C.J.11
S°'1.!.:1":1'
-/ ..--,--c:=-~
18A\ DETAIL
---/ ----~-188\ DETAIL
04A,048) SLIMES DRAIN LATERAL-OPTION 1 04A,04B/ SLIMES DRAIN LATERAL· OPTION 2
;.eAl!:: r•T' C,(J,,1,,1,_ l'. ~
---+---4CCU,S.~~ •• ----le--
DETAIL
CELL SA -CELL 5B ACCESS ROAD & ANCHOR TRENCH ~l"'·r
MINMI..M 10' WICE STRIP OFTEX"Tl.AED GEOMEMBIWE EXTRUSION VELOED (4 51DESj
'Z/2,
~ DETAIL
'~ ;a} SPLASH PAD DETAIL
Geosyntect>
eonmlrant,
11117SM/fOCIIE.AIWIDOMl,SIJTi.Dl eF En"'9)'F~,olr.R=>,,,a,~/US/l/lr,o tc.AUt.f"•:"
NOTH.::
! OETAILS AAE SliQW,I TO 5CAl.E N:IICATE> EXCE/'T FM THE GEOSYNOE.TICS, YHCHAflE SHOWN AT AN£XAGGEAATED SC.AL£F<)F1CLN"Y
2 !XPOSEO PVC PIPE SI-W..L BE PAINTED TO MINlt.'UE C,,MAGE DUE ,ow
3 ~PAAIEDSUB~DE ATCEU.8ASESl-'Al.LCONSISTOF AT
LEAST 11-INCf£S OF FILL OVER. VIN,:. SAr>DSTOIIIE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTIONS 0~01) ANO 02220 OF THE --~-PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
~=~rr:=
LINER SYSTEM DETAILS II
CONS1RUCTION OF CELLS 5A AND SB
l'O,-... YIID'Tlll'-r""'-~19«!EJIOlt cc,aTA~l,Nl,~OIHH..0
-~---
WHITE MESA MIU.
BLANDING, UTAH
........
GTC IOATI! JN«Wf'{201)
t.Nc IMO,u;;roQ ~
R9F ltu t«&)l,m,Ot
OTC
~~---1L
SJMPLIFIED DESIGN CHARTS FOR GEOMEMBRANE CUSHIONS
STEPHEN N. VALERO, P.E. -SYNTHETIC INDUSTRJES, INC. (USA)
DERON N. AUSTIN, P.E. -SYNTHETIC INDUSTRIES, INC. (USA)
ABSTRACT
Recent and ongoing research indicates that use of a properly selected nonwoven, needle-
punched geotextile cushion adjacent to (above and/or below) a geomembrane can effectively
protect it from construction and operational damage. The current practice selects an appropriate
geotextile cushion using the Geosynthetic Research Institute (ORI) method (Koerner, et. al.
1996). This method was used to develop simplified design charts allowing quick, conservative
selection of an appropriate geotextile cushion. Charts are provided for typical applications
!"lcluding solid waste landfills and liquid impoundments with varying load, subgrade and
JVer/subgrade soil conditions. In addition, a brief discussion of the design procedure is
provided with completed numerical examples.
INTRODUCTION
Most solid and hazardous waste landfills, lagoons
and reservoirs built today incorporate geomembranes to
contain liquids. Although these low permeability liners
have demonstrated excellent performance, they are
susceptible to damage when drainage stone or alternate
drainage media (such as shredded tires, crushed glass,
etc.) are placed over them (Figure 1). In addition,
geomembranes are prone to damage fj:om isolated
protrusions present in the subgrade onto which they are
deployed.
Figure 2 illustrates the typical components of
modem landfill liner system and Figure 3 represents a
typical liquid impoundment liner system. Of these
components, the geomembrane is the most prone to
Figure I. Stone Placement over a
Geomembrane
..
damage. Protecting the geomembrane from tearing or puncturing during construction and
operation is critical. Recent and ongoing research indicates that deployment of a properly
'lected nonwoven, needle-punched geotextile cushion adjacent to (above and/or below) a
~omembrane provides effective protection against damage.
~ '..
,~ Drainage Stone ""
" • -Geotextile Cushion
f'f'.?fMPIMl!Mi4tiii0¥0dll\P&:•'.:"lml"!:"ma:_"ts1f Oeomem.bnme . . -illi-il!F ·-::•,;:,t·=· t-'' 1-· -•'f" -Geotexule Cushion -:r, =·:.;~td.4a~ ~-\=-
Subgradc
Figure 2. Typical Municipal
Landfill Liner System
. .. Liquid
•' . -'. ~:::.w•i&b•=?Prii£G.idi12fii~.. Geomembrane (,f.JL,:-~if.b==-=· .,:;:; -Geotextile Cushion ·--::=-
Subgrade
Figure 3. Typical Liquid
Impoundment Liner System
STATE OF GEOMEMBRANE CUSHION DESIGN PRACTICE
State of geomembrane cushion design practice suggests using the generalized procedure
developed by Koerner, et. al (1996) at the Oeosynthetic Research Institute (ORI). The GRI
method couples theoretical (Wilson-Fahmy, et. al., 1996) and empirical (Narejo, et. al., 1996)
puncture protection analysis through use of a global factor of safety. The method directly
applies to 1.5 mm (60 mil), smooth, high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes protected
by virgin polymer, nonwoven, needle-punched geotextiles. However, early work by Hullings
and Koerner (1991) and field research by Richardson and Johnson (1998) indicate that the
ethod may be conservative for geomembranes manufactured from more flexible polymers.
oerner, et. al. (1996) also suggest that the ORI method may be extended to other types of
cushion materials.
The governing equation (Equation 1) incorporates several simplifying assumptions. For
extrapolation to field design, (at least partially) subjective modification/reduction factors are
required. In addition, laboratory testing used to develop the model did not incorporate dynamic
loading. Therefore, the GRI method is considered adequate in cases where uniform, normal,
static loading controls the design (i.e~ moderate to high waste fills and most liquid
impoundments) and may be under-conservative in cases where construction (dynamic) loading
controls (i.e. shallow waste fills, poor constructibn practices, etc.). Based on field evaluation of
geosynthetic cushions under construction loading, Richardson ( 1996) recommends modification • of the GRI method such that the minimum nonwoven geotextile cushion mass selected is 405
g/m2 (12 oz/yd2) for 2.5 cm (I in) maximtim gravel over smooth HDPE geomembranes. This
recommendation was later extended to 1.3 cm (0.5 in) gravel through additional field testing
(Richardson and Johnson, 1998). Reddy et. al. (1996) performed similar field evaluations and ..
concluded that a lighter 270 g/m2 (8 oz/yd2) geotextile is capable of providing adequate
protection against construction loading. Based on laboratory testing, Reddy and Saichek (1998)
also concluded that a 270 g/m2 (8 oz/yd2) may provide acceptable long-term protection under
specific conditions.
Although· a comprehensive review of previous research is beyond the scope of this paper,
the reader is encouraged to read and understand the referenced literature prior to application or
,odification of the GRI method. This methodology (that fonns the basis for the simplified
;Sign charts presented later in this paper) is summarized in the following steps.
Step 1: Estimate the Allowable Pressure on the Geomembrane (in terms of MA)
P'allow = (450 • ~)( l )( l ) c!:: H MFS . I\,1FPC • MFA FSCR • FSCBD
(Equation 1)
Where:
P' allow
450
MA
H
MFs
:MF'pc
MFA
FScR
FScBD
= Allowable pressure on geomembrane (kPa)
= Empirical constant (kPa·mm2/(g/m2))
= Required mass per unit area of nonwoven, needle-punched geotextile (g/m2)
= Effective height of protrusion (mm)
= Modification factor for protrusion shape (dimensionless)
= Modification factor for protrusion configuration (dimensionless)
= Modification factor for overburden arching effect (dimensionless)
= Factor of safety for geotextile creep (dimensionless)
= Factor of safety for geotextile chemical/biological degradation
(dimensionless)
Equation 1 should be solved in terms of MA. The effective height of protrusion (H)
;resents the maximum height of any object in contact with the geomembrane extends relative
LO the overlying/underlying media. In cases where protection is sought from uniformly packed
stones (such as landfill leachate collection/drainage media), H may be estimated as one-half the
maximum particle diameter of the stones. However, when protection is sought from isolated
protrusions (such as stones encountered in a hastily prepared subgrade), H may be estimated as
the maximum particle diameter of the protrusions. In the later case, the value ofH may be based
on observed 'conditions, or specified by restricting the largest particle size allowed to remain on
the prepared subgrade during geosynthetic deployment. Modification Factors for protrusion
shape, protrusion configuration, and overburden arching effect may be selected based on
guidelines presented by Narejo, et. al (1996): •
Table 1. Recommended Modification Factor for Protrusion Shape
(Adapted from Narejo, et. al., 1996, page 647)
Protrusion Shape
Angular
Subrounded
Rounded
Modifica~on Factor, MFs
1.00 .... ~--
0.50,
0.25
Table 2. R,ecommended Modification Factor for Protrusion Configuration
(Adapted from Narejo, et. al., 1996, page 647)
Protrusion Configuration
Isolated Protrusions
Unifonnly Packed Surface
Modification Factor, MFpc
1.00
0.50.
Table 3. Recommended Modification Factor for Overburden Arching Effect
(Adapted from Narejo, et. al., 1996, page 648)
Anticipated Arching Effect
None (i.e. Liquid Overburden)
Moderate
Maximum
Modification Factor, MF A
1.00 ..... --
0.so
f).25
Through limited creep testing, Narejo, et. al. (1996) indicated that geotextile cushion
creep is primarily a function of H and MA. Since MA is unknown at this point, Equation 1 may
be solved by assuming a reasonable value for FScR based on the anticipated ~ required.
Following completion of the required calculations, the assumed value of FScR must be checked
for validity. Table 4 provides recommended FScR values in the form of unique linear equations
for several commonly available nonwoven, needle-punched geotextiles. It is interesting to note
that the recommended upper limit with respect to H, is in general agreement (probably by
coincidence) with construction limits established by Richardson (1996) and Reddy and Saichek
1 1996). The equations for FScR and their range of validity were interpolated/extrapolated from
1ailable geotextile cushion creep test data (Narejo, et. al., 1996).
Table 4. Factor of Safety for Geotextile Creep
(Adapted from Narejo, et. al., 1996, page 644 -648)
Nonwoven, Needle-punched Geotextile Mass per
Unit Area
270 glm (N/R for H > 12 mm)
405 g/m2 (N/R for H > 19 mm)
540 g/m2 (N/R for H > 25 mm)
675 g/m2 (N/R for H > 29 mm)
745 g/m2 (N/R for H > 31 mm)
810 g/m2 (N/R for H > 32 mm)
945 g/m2 (N/R for H > 35 mm)
1015 g/m2 (N/R for H > 36 mm)
1080 g/m2 (N/R for H > 38 mm)
NOTE: N/R = Not recommended
Factor of Safety, FSCR
=::0.0417·H + 1.25 A~--
~0.0292·H + 1.18
=::0.0166·H + 1.11
::::0.0139·H + 1.08
::::0.0129·H + 1.07
~o.Ot 19·H + 1.06
~o.OlOO·H + 1.03
::::0.0089-H + 1.02
==0.0080·H + l.00
The factor of safety for chemical and biological degradation (FSc8n) should be selected
based on the aggressiveness of the anticipated chemical environment and the geotextile polymer
composition. Table 5 provides general recommendations:
Table 5. Recommended Factor of Safety for Chemical and Biological DegradatiQn
(based on Koerner, 1994, page 151 and Synthetic Industries, 1997)
Chemical Environment Factor of ~afety for Chem/Bio Degradation, FSceo
Polyester (PET) Polypropylene (PP)
Geotextiles Geotextiles
1.0 1.0 Nonna I (i.e. 3 < pH < I 0)
Aggressive (pH <3 or pH > I 0) 1.5 -2.0 1.0 -1.5 ·-•----
Step 2: Estimate the Anticipated Pressure on the Geomembrane
pactual = 'Y 'h (Equation 2)
Where:
'Y = Unit weight of overburden material or liquid (kN/m3)
h = Design height of overburden material or liquid depth (m)
P actual = Estimated maximum pressure on geomembrane (kPa)
The parameters required to complete Equation 2 may be assumed or specified based on
site specific considerations. The unit weight of typical municipal solid waste may be estimated
to equal 12.56 kN/m3 (80 lb/ft3) in the absence of site specific data. Likewise, the unit weight of
most liquids can be approximated by the unit weight of water, 9.81 kN/m3 (62.4 lb/fl:3).
In some cases (i.e. shallow waste fills, poor construction practices, etc.), the dynamic
>rces associated with construction loading may exceed those associated with long-term static
loading. The exact point at which this occurs is dependent on multiple variables and difficult (if
not impossible) to estimate. Therefore, caution should be exercised in selection of a geotextile
cushion having a mass per unit area less than 405 g/m2 (12 oz/yd2), the construction limit
recommended by Richardson and Johnson (1998).
Step 3: Calculate the Required Mass per Unit Area of the Cushion Geotextile
Where:
P' allow
FSgmin
(Equation 3)
= Allowable pressure on g~omembrane in terms of MA (Equation 1)
= Global Factor of Safety (dimensionless)
Equation 3 may be solved for MA through substitution (Equation I and 2 results) and ..
algebraic manipulation. The global factor of safety (FSgmin) should be selected based on the
protrusion configuration and H. Recommendations are provided in Table 6.
-·
Table 6. Recommended Global Factor of Safety
(Adapted from Koemer, et. al., 1996, page 648)
Protrusion Configuration
Isolated Protrusions
Unifonnly Packed Surface
Step 4: Select Appropriate Geotextile Cushion
Global Factor of Safety, FSgmin
= 0.22·H + 1.77 (:2: 3.0)
3.0
Select a nonwoven, needle-punched geotextile having a minimum average roll value
(MARV) MA greater than or equal to that calculated in Step 3. It should be noted that the
method presented herein is based on limited testing (Narejo, et. al, 1996) using virgin polymer,
nonwoven, nee~le-punched geotextile and may not apply to aH types of geotextiles and cushion
materials.
Step 5: Check Assumed Value ofFScR and Construction Limits
In Step 1, FScR was assumed to allow solution of Equation I. Check Table 4 to ensure
that the assumed value is valid for the geotextile selected in Step 4 (If not, revise FScR and
repeat Steps I through 4 ).
In cases where solid material (i.e. rock, solid waste, etc.) will be placed on top of the
geomembrane with heavy equipment, construction loading must be considered. Based on field
experimentation, the minimum MA ~eotextile should be between 270 g/m2 (8 oz/yd2) (Reddy, et.
:., 1996) and 405 g/m2 (12 oz/yd ) (Richardson and Johnson, 1998) to prevent construction
.amage. The reader should review and understand both documents prior to selecting a
geotextile having MA less than 405 g/m2•
SIMPLIFIED GEOMEMBRANE CUSHION SELECTION CHARTS
A series of simplified design charts have been developed for the most common
geomembrane cushioning applications based on the methodology presented. These charts allow
the user to quickly and conservatively select an appropriate virgin polymer, nonwoven, needle-
punched geotextile cushion. The applicability and assumptions associated with these charts are
provided in the notes section of each figure. In addition, the reader is encouraged to review and
understand the limitations of the ORI method ( discussed in the referenced literature) prior to
application the charts on the following pages. Figures 4 through 7 present charts for landfill ;
applications while Figures 8 and 9 relate to 1iquid impoundment applications.
EXAMPLES
The following simple design examp1es illustrate application of the charts and GRJ
ethod to three common geomembrane cushion applications. Examples 1 and 2 illustrate
..Jection of a geotextile cushion using Figures 4 through 9. Example 3 depicts selection of a
geotextile cushion for conditions other than those represented by the charts.
Example I: Municipal Landfill Liner Cushion
A municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill cell is to be constructed over a carefully
prepared subgrade (no significant isolated protrusions). The leachate collection media (to be
placed above the geomembrane) is angular crushed stone with a maximum diameter of 38 mm
(1.5 in). The maximum design height of the cell is 80 m (262.5 ft). Select an appropriate
geotextile to protect the geomembrane.
Solution l:
Using the design charts in Figures 4 or 5 select a needle-punched, nonwoven,
polypropylene geotextile having a MARV MA of at least 540 g/m2 ( 16 oz/yd2).
Example 2: Liquid Impoundment Liner Cushion
A liquid impoundment is to be constructed over a subgrade containing isolated, angular
stone protrusions. The impoundment is to be lined with a geomembrane underlain by a 540
'm2 (16.0 oz/yd2) needle-punched, nonwoven, polypropylene geotextile for protection against
-! subgrade stones. No stone or other solid material will be placed on the geomembrane.
1-herefore, construction loading is not a concern. It is anticipated that the maximum liquid depth
will be 20 m (65.6 ft). For specification purposes, determine the largest stone which may safely
remain on the subgrade without damaging the geomembrane.
Solution 2:
B_ased on the design charts in Figures 8 or 9, stones larger than 23 mm (0.9 in) in
diameter might damage the geomembrane. Thus, the construction specification could be written
to require removal of all protruding subgrade stones larger than approximately 25 mm (1 in). -·
Example 3: Industrial Landfill Liner Cushion
A portion of the cell described in Example I is to be used as a monofill for automobile
shredder fluff (average unit weight equal to 10.2 kN/m3 (65 1b/ft3)). This portion of the cell is
design to be filled to a height of 25 m (82 ft). In addition, a finer 25 mm (1 in) angular, crushed ..
stone will be used for leachate collection media. Assuming a11 other liner components ( except
the cushion) remain unchanged, select an appropriate geotextile to protect the geomembrane.
• I
Solution 3:
The design charts are not applicable to this problem since y :;c 12.6 kN/m3 (80 lb/fl:3). In
,dition, construction loading may control geotextile selection given the relatively shallow fill
,ight and low unit weight of waste. Consequently, the problem must be solved by equation.
A. Determine P 'allow in terms of MA, where:
H
MF's
MF'po
MFA
FScR
FScBD
=~of maximum overlying particle diameter = 12.5 mm
= 1.0 (Table I -angular stone)
= 0.5 (Table 2 -uniformly packed surface)
= 0.75 ( Table 3 -moderate arching of waste materials)
= 1.6 (assumed, corresponds to 270 g/m2 -to be checked against Table 4)
= 1.2 (Table 5 -polypropylene geotextile in waste application)
P' =(450·~)( I )( l )= 4 O·M allow 12.5 2 1.0 • 0.5 · 0.75 1.6 • l.2 • A
B. Determine anticipated pressure on geomembrane, where:
y = 10.2 kN/m3 (given)
h = 25 m (given)
P11ciua1 = I 0.2 · 25 = 255 · kPa (Equation 2)
Solve for minimum geotextile MA through manipulation of Equation 3, where:
FSgmin
P' allow
= 3.0 (Table 6 -uniform packed stones, no isolated subgrade protrusions)
= 4.0· MA (Equation 1)
4.0 · MA ;?! 3 .0 · 255 (Equation 3)
Thus, MA> 191.3 g/m2 (5.7 oz/yd2)
or: M > 3.0·255
A -4,Q
D . Check result against Creep limits established in Table 4 and Construction Limits:
From Table 4, the minimum acceptable MA= 405 g/m2 (12 oz/yd2). Coincidentally, this ,
agrees with the construction limits -recommended by Richardson and Johnson (1998).
Thus, select a nonwoven, needle-punched geotextile having a MARV MA of at least 405
g/m2• Although, FScR was selected based on a 270 g/rn2 (8 oz/yd2) geotextile, the
problem need not be reevaluated in this case since a 405 g/m2 (12 oz/yd2) geotextile is the
minimum acceptable material based on creep limits (Table 4).
SUMMARY AND APPLICABILITY
The design charts and methodology provided herein are intended to provide a quick and
nservative method to select an appropriate geomembrane cushion. Prior to applying the
sign charts or method, the reader should review and understand the limitations and
assumptions discussed in the referenced literature. In circumstances where site specific
conditions deviate significantly from the research forming the basis for the charts and GRI
method, it is recommended that a project specific testing program be conducted and evaluated
by a qualified professional. Geosynthetic materials, testing parameters, etc. should be modeled
after anticipated field conditions.
REFERENCES
Hullings, D. and Koerner, R.M., 1991, "Puncture Resistance ofGeomembranes Using a
Truncated Cone Test", Geosynthetics '91 Conference Proceedings, IFAI: Roseville, MN, pp.
273-285.
Koerner, R.M., 1994, "Designing with Geosynthetics", 3rd ed., Prentice-Hall, Inc.: Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
Koerner, R.M., Wilson-Fahmy, R.F. and Narejo, D., 1996, "Puncture Protection of
Geomembranes Part III: Examples", Geosynthetics International, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 655-675.
Narejo, D., Koerner, R.M. and Wilson-Fahmy, R.F., 1996, "Puncture Protection of
~omembranes Part II: Experimental", Geosynthetics International, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 629-653 .
. ,eddy, K.R. and Saichek, R.E., 1998, "Performance of Protective Cover Systems for Landfill
Geomembrane Liners Under Long-Term MSW Loading", Geosynthetics International, vol. 5,
no. 3, pp. 287-307.
Reddy, K.R., Bandi, S.R., Rohr, J.J., Finy, M., and Siebken, J., 1996, "Field Evaluation of
Protective Covers for .!...andfill Geomembrane Liners Under Construction Loading",
Geosynthetics International, vol. 3, no. 6, pp. 679-700.
Richardson, G .N. and Johnson, S ., 1998, "Field Evaluation of Geosynthetic Protective
Cushions: Phase 2", Ge?technical Fabrics Report, vol. 16, no. 8, Oct.-Nov., pp. 44-49.
Richardson, G.N., 1996, "Field Evaluation qf Geosynthetic Protection Cushions", Geotechnical
Fabrics Report, vol. 14, no. 2, Mar., pp. 20-25.
Synthetic Industries, 1997, "The Durability of Polypropylene -Nonwoven Geotextiles for
Waste Containment Applications -SMART SOLUTIONS® Technical Note, SM-404", Synthetic
Industries, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
Symhetic Industries, 1998, "Desigri and Selection of GEOTEx® Ultra Heavy Weight Nonwoven
Geotextiles for Geomembrane Cushioning-SMART SOLUTIONS® Technical Note, SM-116",
..,ynthetic Industries, Chattanooga, Tennessee.
_ !ilson-Fahmy, R.F., Narejo, and D., Koerner, R.M., 1996, "Puncture Protection of
Geomembranes Part I: Theory", Geosynthetics International, vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 605-628.
r-,..
.§, _.
~ --I) a: -tS ~ a ...l
§ e ·-~ ~
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
110
70
60
so
~
1. Cbans ••uppli~e far sielcc:liao _______ ,...__ ofpolypvp)1Rre, ~.-l)i,,
y.lDChe:d gCl)IDCmbnm> c:usbioa
~--+-t---e-r-\----:-"'l~.+t--~'-~-~~----r--~~ . 2. Assumed IIZlir ~I of~
" 12..S6 kNhti1
4-4..---t-1--,--~1--;-~~-~r--'~it----r--3. As=ma»osi~ snbgrade
~ & '1llifonzily pckcd
ovuty.mg llvr:l<:1.
-1--~-+--\--t---t--t--~+--+--t--;o-'l~~--t--,, A:sw:rr,:s.m~~ c:ff= bi
ovatiunx:D ma!Cri&l.
S, GobdFac=rofSa=yz3.0, .,;_-1---....-~-;---~--111,---..-.-"-._____. ...... -""~•~-0a:p 'Faabr.s orW=y~
rz. Nucjo, ct.. al. (1996)
..__--4~--...---~r-----t-~-+-+-'llr-----t~~--t-,c--6. AISUIDIS tbal J~ Jcadi:ag
cmnrohibc~
40
30
20
10
\
• I t 0 ...__ _ _._.. __ --r---r--.o..+---+--_......___--;-__,._~--L.---...;a.--a...--1'-'
20 25 30 35 40 45 so ss 60 65 70
Maximum Overlying Stone Diameter (mm)
Figure 4. Geomembranc Cushion Selection Chart -Landfill Applicatio~
Rounded Overlying Stones (SI Units)
7S
Geosynthetics '99 363
I I
,
'
1·
•
+
2 ._., ....
I ~
I I. Cllans an •pplicablc for . i e s::.la:tion of i,otyprapyla;,r.,
550 ~-·--:t----1---'l---l~---\c•'-\-~---t--1 8 fi ___ noD'lll'UYCQ, lliea!ID>puzicbod I t:, .i pmcmlozie c:uwoa p,tab1c:s.
500
400
J J l. AsmmcdwiirW1:il,i:d.ofl\'Um ..
ti ' ao .lb'II'
"4-4·---"·l-\-~-,1,-\-4-~-=U=-4--• ]. A.DIJ:IIG 00 sigDjSc:am
1111bgrw pmtnuiDu & wuiiml)y
pli:kcd o~alying $lDDCS..
! 4. Ammies i:mx!cntc aichiiia I dfa:z in o'#Crbunlc:ii IIJll.ll::rw •
. ~-... ---i~-s. Cilobal n=,af'Sdi:ty • 3.0,
Cnq,Flldors ors.Aty
lmz::rpolc:d bm. N-Jo, ct. al.
(1996)
-+--+--;----+-...---4'--\.--~-~~-~--"lr---'....-!--6. Asmmas ,hat loog-ccna la.ding -
a:i&nnlls die dc:sip.
~ ill .... 350 la J d= --t;:
"'O a ...:i e
.§
~ :s
300
2SO
200
150
100
so
0
I p I I
I
I 1
H-+----1} l!--l ~-~-~-,._--'\.-.---"lo....--,,.....!------1 lill
l 11 11 l~ ! ! ii ... .. 'IO J;
~.I l-:i
if ya:
!
'
• I l I I
I ~ l l !
I I
I I 0 I i ('t
l t
I I
I I i I I I l \ I !
0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 l.75 3.00
Maxim~ Overlf,ng Stone Diameter (in)
Figure 5. Geomemb.rane Cushion Selection Ch.art -Landfill Application,
Rounded Overlying Stones (US Units)
.,o4 Geosynthetics '99
i t ,
8 ---fo ~ ..... -d
]
.1
m ~ . \
..
"70
~
i l. (lians an a;,plii:a\)1: for sdca:.iOD af' polyprcpyJa:ic. Jl~Wovc:n, DCDflOfWldJ.::d
--p::cmtmmDC:CIWCh ~,es.
:Z, A.aun,al imll 'llf'Qdu of~ -12,56 kNlm1
,0 '. .... .. . •:--.,-.... , _ 3. Amma110 ~~~ ii. unif'ormlypldi:.edovcrlyia.a ~
-4. Amml.cs macfcnu ll"Cml&dl°IU in o~ imu:riaJ.
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
so J
40
30
20
10
10
!I. Glabal Faaa-CllSdcry"" 3,0, Cn::q, F:aCLOtS of' S.Uc:ey ~Imai from Nutjo, C1.. at
(199'6)
&. ~ Ill& I~ Jc.din; ~lsth.c dl::m;IL
, : I ' : • : • ~ ·-.......... -----_____ .:., .. ·---...i.--,-. ---:__ ..... --·-
15
'
-~ --r~i. ....... i
I w '
. --:. .. --.:. ...~, ... ······
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Maximmn Overlymg Stone Diameter (mm)
-----
65 70
Figure 6. Geomembrane Cushion Selection Chart -Landfill Application,
Angular Overlying Stones (SI Units)
75
Geosynthetics '99 365
: t. I .i-
1
I . . ·,
r:
. ,j
' l f
'--;J,
\
550 · · · -.. ~
.soo
450
200
0.25 0.50
?iQm.
l, Oliru :a"C llfPRC1blc fer scl=lCl'I af'pol)Pri:,p)'lcac, n--=, Dc:cdloop11r1dicd
~aid!Klll~CS.
-:Z. ~ uiJit weiJ;tit ar,irue • IO D>'llJ
3. Ammlcs JIO ~c::zat IDbgradti ~i=s & unifa:xzily pada:d
avulyitl,~
4. Asmna:s ~ ming r.lf= in~ mllllciu
...a..,,...__., ... -5. Q)cb;J Fad.al' of Safety-3.0, Cn:qi Fac:.aruf:Sdry ialopol.slcd &-cm N2Rio. d.. al .
(1996)
6. />.ssllmcs lbn Jcngurm lmidmg -=als the dc:sip,.
. . .. . --. .. . . .... . . . .. ·-...... ·-· __ ,.. .. •tt·-. ·-. . .... t • • .. ., ·--.. --··-···.
. . . . rn· : . : . : ~ ; . . __ ...; ___ i .. ____ .. !, ··-· .. : ..... -· -··· -........ • ... , .
0 ; .
: "' : . :
. ··--,_...,., -
. ' . . . ·····------· . -·----"'··· ···-·--·--··----... ··---. rn ... ; ; -t' . 0 • " :
--· I'\ ·---• .. -········ ................... -1:-.. ... . .
. . .
_.:.. ... --....
' ; --~-, ..... -. ; . ···-
0.7S 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.7S 2.00 2.25 2,5D· 2.75 3.00
Maximmn Overlying Stone Diameter (in)
Figure 7. Geomembrane Cushion Selection Chart -Landfill Application,
Angular Overlying Stones (US Units) .
.5 Geosynthetics ·99
' i: t
;
~ ,
i i I
' I
j •
30 ~-r----:-,---~--------------~~-~----~--~-----, ~
L ~ arc applic:abla ror mca.ian af DmJWova&, ncnile,pll(lcbcd ~ c:wbic:u
pdcxtiles..
2. Amncd IIDil w. af1lipud Dl1a'bcmlai • 9.ti ~,,,.,
3. ~ i~ ~galarsubpdcprcund~
'4. Global F~ of'Sal'cty • ft~dc II.enc diuiDcl) ail=-Kocmc:r, a. al. (1996). Q,ap
Fa.ca.ora ol"Safcty ial.a'polltal :£n;wn N.n;ia, d. Ill. (l996).
25 ----... -· .. . ... :---. ···-· .-~ ··--. ··--..
20 --,-· ·--· ·
[l] ...
0
"
...... ··----
T~
10 ____ _ ___ --~---__ l_l ~--.. ..JU
--····1--1--1
..9
·-b lL. 1~ oe '1:1::,
~!
:mi .. :-~ -·HI•
• C> . -•
s ... ·-·---t . -.·at·---· .... -.. ··-· -. -.. ··-·· ---· ... ·----···--·---·---· .. ....,,.,. .
0 -1------..-----....L..,,----------....1.....---------.L--L,..-A..--------1
10 15 20 -~s 30 35 40
Maximum Subgrade Stone Diameter (mm)
Figure 8. Geomembrane Cushion Selection Chart -Liquid Impoundment
Application, Sub angular Subgrade Stones (SI Units)
4S "
Geosynthetics '99 3D7
ss .
so
2 ~ -fi 45 .. .. ----·~--· · .... _ · ,, __ · -• · ·-· · · • ·-··
! .J .. .. .. ·-•" -···· --.. ·-· .. -· ..... :=
C' '
;:s 3S ll I··-~. -·· ... -.! 30 -~--___ -.. Ill·----.. __ . _ ···-= !: ~ 25J · __ m· ...
. ......
l
~
l, a.am we applicable Car
$dcd.icn of IICIJ'l'"-1. naedl~
puui.;hal ~aubic:c
pu:xtilc:s_
l. Am&mai 1111il. wcitbt or llcr,lid
• : ···-·-~·62.41b/4J
3, ,__ isallta!, mbaig,.ilar
mb~ pn:INSicm.
• -· · 4. Global fatQ.ar 1:ifWcty::r
ltAlbfvada ,tmo cliarneca-) allcr
Kac:mcr, a. al. .(199~>, er..,
_ Fa~ af'Sat'ey .imapo1MI
hm Nanjc,,, d. al. C1"6). s. As:IUIDaf lhal laog,ca,n
I J.....siag~1ho:dadp.
'" ·· .. .., .
--··· ··-· ~ ....
' I ..... -... -·, -· ....... ·-·
----.. . .. _ .... -· .. ··-· ..
... -~ ---__, ___ ..... I : ·W
20 r ·:-· .. -......... . . rn . . f .
• 0 • }. • • : ~ --;-, ~ +-mo 1?. .--·-· . :--.~.rno ..
. ... ~ Il]"" "' : • ... 0 .;,,. • : ""'
• ..,. : ,:) I •
' IN Cl ' , 15 1 · ··-· -·:· --.... -...... :. ···-. -: . -----• I --·--. •-'• •••--· • ._....... ~01 --"" I o ~ -· I-••••
• 0
Cl ....
10 i ... -.. : ---..... · ......... ------·--· ·
51 ·:-· -····:·~-·
···~---···
I
0 -;.l-----r---ir---:--...._,-----,----1---~-.a.--:-1-----~----"-:-----,i------1
0·.4
+
o.s 0.6 0.7 0,8 0.9 l.O 1.1 l.2 1.3 1.4 l.S
Maximum Subgrade Stone Diameter (in)
Figure 9. Geomembrane Cushion Selection Chart -Liquid Impoundmcnt
Application, Subangular Subgrade Stones (US Units)
r Geosynthetics •99.
1.6
. '
i• "
GIROUD, BADU-TWENEBOAH AND SODERMAN • Analysis of Geomembrane Puncture
(a) (b)
t
F
Figure 1. Geomembrane puncture: (a) contact between geomembrane and puncturing
object; (b) analogy with the burst test
where: e = geomembrane strain; and Z = function of e implicitly defined by the follow-
ing equation:
sin-1 Z, e = -1 Z,. (3)
Since Z. cannot be expressed explicitly, it is convenient to tabulate its values. The val-
ues of Z presented in Table 1 were obtained by tria I and error using Equation 3. It should
be noted that the function Z. exists only in the range O ~ e ::; 57%.
Eliminating Pc between Equations 1 and 2 gives:
(4)
The geomembrane tension, T, is expressed as follows:
(5)
where: a= tensile stress in the geomembrane; and fcM = thickness of the geomembrane.
Combining Equations 4 and 5 gives:
(6)
Geomembrane failure in the punctllfe mode occms when the stress, a, and the strain,
, In the geomembrane reach lhelrvalues at the peak of the stress-strain curve, ape_. and
tpu1 , respectively. These peak values are the stress and strain at yield (ar and £1·) for
geomembrancs that yield or lhe stress and straJn at break (<11, and tb) fol' geom em bran es
that do not yield. Therefore:
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6 1021
GIROUD, BADU-TWENEBOAH AND SODERMAN • Analysis of Geomembrane Puncture
Table 1. Function Z .
f 4: E z C Z.,
(%) (-) (%) (-) (%) (-)
0 0.000 2.6 0.381 12 0.728
0.2 0.109 2.8 0.395 13 0.749
0.3 0.134 3 0.408 14 0.768
0.4 0.154 3.2 0.420 15 0.785
0.5 0.172 3.4 0.432 16 0.801
0.6 0.188 3.6 0.443 17 0.816
0.8 0.217 3.8 0.454 18 0.830
I 0.242 4 0.465 19 0.844
1.2 0.264 5 0.513 20 0.856
1.4 0.284 6 0.555 25 0.905
1.6 0.303 7 0.591 30 0.940
1.8 0.321 8 0.624 35 0.964
2 0.337 9 0.654 40 0.980
2.2 0.353 10 0.681 50 0.997
2.4 0.367 11 0.705 57 I.DO
Note: The values of Z. were calculated using Equation 3.
Pp = 3t de a peak lcMZ.µeak (7)
where: F;, = geomembrane puncture resistance measured in a probe test; and Z.P'•k =.val-
ue of Z for e = 1::,,..1, •
Equation 7 is the general relationship between the puncture resistance Fp and the fol-
lowing parameters: the diameter of the contact area, de, between the puncturing object
and the geomembrnne; and the geomembrane characteristics, a,,..k, eP'•k, and lcM. This
relationship is used in subsequent sections to develop specific relalionships for various
practical cases. The use of Equation 7 is limited to values of the geomembrane strain
at peak, eµ,,1 , not greater than 57%, which is the limil of validity of the function Z .
This limits the applicability of the method to geomembranes that rupture or yield al a
strain not greater than 57%, such as high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomcmbranes
that yield at a strain on lhe order of 10 to 15%, and geomembranes reinforced with a
woven fabric, such as chlorosu.lfonated polyethylene (CSPE) gcomembranes, tlrnt lypl-
cally break at approximately 20% strain.
It should be noted that Equation 7 generally applies to homogeneous geom em bran es.
which are characterized by the parameters a peak, e"'"*, and lcM. In the case of geomem-
branes that are not homogeneous, i.e. geomembranes which comprise layers of differ-
ent materials, such as reinforced geomembranes. it is not appropriate to use a,,..,1 and
fcu; these geomembranes are characterized by the geomembrane tension at peak, Tpr•k,
and by epeRk • Using the relationship between tension and tensile stress expressed by
1022 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2. NO. 6
GIROUD, BADU-TWENEBOAH AND SODERMAN • Analysis of Geomembrane Puncture
10. However, the puncture force is not the same in the two cases because the contact
diameter, de.,, in the case of a stone, is not the same as the prnbe diameter, d". Eliminat-
ing apeak and Epeak between Equations 9 and IO gives:
(11)
where: lcM, = thickness of the geomembrane in contact with stones; and lcMp = thickness
of the geomembrane tested with a probe.
The next step of the analysis is the evaluation of the force applied to the geomembrane
by a stone in contact with the geomembrane. Jt is assumed that one surface of the geo-
membrane is subjected to a pressure, p, applied by a liquid and the other surface of the
geomembrane is in contact with a layer of stones of unjform size and identical shape
{Figw·e 3). Such a layer is referred to as a "uniform stone layer" in this paper. The stone
shapes are assumed to be three -dimensional. i.e. Ute stones are assumed to have similar
dimensions in all directions; in other words, flat stones such as slates are not considered.
Three-dimensional shapes are typical of rounded or crushed stones (but, in a given "uni-
form stone layer". all stones are assumed to have lhe same shape).
The force applied to the geomembrane by a given stone depends on lhe stone arrange-
ment. In Figure 4, three-dimensional stones are schematically represented by circles in
a plan view. The average surface area of geomembrane associated with one stone is ex-
pressed by the following equation Jf the stone arrangement is hexagonal (Figure 4a):
(12)
where d, is the diameter of a stone. (The classical definition of the diameter of a stone
is the diameter of a circular hole, or the side length of a square hole, through which, the
stone would just pass.)
If the stone arrangement is square {Figure 4b), the average surface area of geomem-
brane associated with one stone is:
(13)
More generally, the average surface area of geomembrane associated with a stone can
be expressed by the following equation:
(14)
where A is a dimensionless term that is a function of the stone arrangement. The parame-
ter A is close to one in the case of a uniform stone layer:
• For a dense (hexagonal) arrangement, according to Equations 12 and 14:
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6 1027
GIROUD, BADU-TWENEBOAH AND SODERMAN • Analysis of Geomembrane Puncture
(a)
(b)
Figure 4. Arrangement of spherical particles: (a) hexagonal arrangement; (b) square
arrangement.
(Note: The parallelogram in Figure 4a or the square In Figure 4b delineate lhe area associated with one
particle.)
(15)
• For a loose (square) arrangement, according to Equations 13 and 14:
,t = 1 (16)
1028 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6
GIROUD, BADU-TWENEBOAH AND SODERMAN • Analysis of Geomembrane Puncture
hence:
d cround = d,,o,md Z, (26)
where Z is the function of e implicitly defined by Equation 3 and the numerical values
of which are given in Table 1.
Combining Equations 21 and 26, with d, = d.rouud and de, = dc,aw,d, gives the following
relationship when puncture occw·s, i.e. when e = eP••* :
A. d,round PP
lcMs
= FpZ,p,aJ:
dµ fcMp
(27)
Like Eq uation 21, Equation 27 expresses a relationship between parameters related
to the stones. on the left, and parameters related to the probe test, on 1he right. In addi-
tion, there ls a factor related to the geomcmbrane on the right (Z,,...t). Equation 21 is
valid for any stone shape, whereas Equal'ion 27 is valid for rounded stones and was de-
veloped assuming the rounded stones are spherical.
Example 2. The same case as for Example 1 is considered. To withstand a pressure
of 830 kPa what should the maximum size of rounded stones be ?
Assuming that yield of a typical HDPE geomembrane occurs at a strain of 11 %, Table
1, for Bpesk = 11 %, gives:
4peak : 0.705
Equation 27 can then be used as follows:
1.5 (290)(0.705)
d,round = (/3 /2)(830, 000) (6.35 X IQ -J)(l.O) = 0.067 m = 67 mm
The stone size of67 mm calculated in the case of rounded stones is significantly larger
than the stone sizes of 17 to 24 mm obtained in Example 1 in the case of angular stones,
which is consistent with the fact that a geomembrane has a larger contact area with a
rounded stone than with an angular stone.
----------END OF EXAMPLE 2
In the case of rounded stones, it should be noted that failure In the puncture mode may
not be the worst case. It is possible that the geomembrane is more likely to fail in the
burst mode between the stones. Design engineers should always consider the possibility
for the geomembrane to burst between stones when a geomembrane, subjected to a liq-
uid pressure, rests on a layer of stones of approximately uniform size, and they should
1034 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 1995, VOL. 2, NO. 6
High Density Polyethylene
Drain Liner1
M
Product Data
Property
Thickness (min. ave.), mil (mm)
Thickness (lowest indiv.), mil (mm)
Test Method
ASTM 05994•
ASTM 05994*
50 (1.25) I
50 (1.25)
Values
60 (1.5) I BO (2.0)
54 (1.35) 72 (1.8)
100 (2.5)
90 (2.25)
*The thickness values mnv he changed due to project specifications (i.e., absolute minimum thickness) .
Drainage Stud Height (min. ave.), mil (mm) ASTM 07466 130 (3.30) 130 (3.30) 130 (3.30) 130 (3.30)
Density, glee, minimum ASTM 0792, Method B 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.94
Tensile Properties (ave. both directions) ASTM 06693, Type IV
Strength @Yield (min. ave.), lb/in width (N/mm) 2 in/minute 110 (19.3) UJ2(23.1i 176 (30.8) 220 (38.5)
Elongation@Yield (min. ave.),% (GL=1.3in) 5 specimens in each direction 13 @ 13 13
Strength @ Break (min. ave.), lb/in width (N/mm) 110 (19 .3) 132 (23.1) 176 (30.8) 220 (38.5)
Elongation@ Break (min. ave.), % (GL=2.0in) 300 300 300 300
Tear Resistance (min. ave.), lbs. (N) ASTM D1004 38 (169) 40 (178) 53 (236) 64 (285)
Puncture Resistance (min. ave.). lbs. (N) ASTM D4833 80 (355) 95 (422) 126 (560) 158 (703)
Carbon Black Content (range in %) ASTM D4218 2-3 2-3 2-3 2 · 3
Carbon Black Dispersion (Category) ASTM D5596 Only near spherical agglomerates
for 1 O views: 9 views in Cat. 1 or 2, and 1 view in Cat. 3
Stress Crack Resistance (Single Point NCTL), hours ASTM D5397, Appendix 300 300 300 300
Oxidative Induction Time, minutes ASTM 03895, 200°C, 1 atm 02 ;,:100 ;,:100 ;,:100 ;?100
Melt Flow Index, g/10 minutes ASTM D1238, 190°C, 2.16kg S1.0 S1.0 S1,0 S1.0
Oven Aging ASTM 05721 80 80 80 80 with HP OIT. (% retained after 90 days) ASTM D5885, 150°C, 500psi 02
UV Resistance GRI GM11 20hr. Cycle@ 75'C/4 hr. dark condensation@ 60'C
with HP OIT, (% retained after 1600 hours) ASTM D5885, 150°C, 500psi 02 50 50 50 50
These product specifications meet or exceed GRl's GMl 3
Supply Information (Standard Roll Dimensions)
Thickness Width Length Area (~pprox.) Weight (nvernge)*
mil mm ft m ft m ft2 mz lbs kg
50 1.25 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 2,600 1,178.34
60 1.5 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 2,900 1,315.42
80 2.0 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 3,600 1,632.93
100 2.5 23 7 300 91.435 6,900 640.05 4,000 1,814.37
Notes:
All rolls nre r1tpplicd,witb 1:1u11 slinu, All rnlls rtn wrnmd ,m ll 6 i11cb core. S"pecinl lmgth.< ,,re avtlilr1ble 0111"eq11crt. All ro/l lrngrb., nnd widths hai•e n tolem11ce of ±J %
'The weight v11/11rs 11111y d,h11gc d11r to project spedjimlions (i.e. ab.,olute -mini111m11 thitlmess or special roll lrngrh;) or .<hipJ1i11!'; t'<'quirements (i.e. intm111tion11/
co111ni11oriutl s/Jif1111cms).
All infonn.,rion, rccommcntfatior\5 wd soggcst:ions appearing in this llrcrotnrc concerning the use of um protlucts urc l,35cd upon tests and dat:1 hclic=I
to l,e reliable; however, it is the users rnsponsibilit}' to tlercrminc the suitability for their own use of the products dcscril,c(I herein. Since l'he ncnrnl
use by others is beyond mir comro~ no !,l'\llll"anu:u or wnrranty of nny kind, expl'esscd or implied, is made by Agni /America as i'o Lhc cffocri; of such use
or die results to be obtained, nor docs Agru/America asimmc :1ny llnhility in conncctim, herewith. Ai.1y statenwnt made herein may not be absolmdy
complcrc since additional information may be ncccS.'i"ilry or <lcsirnblc when particular or exceptional mnditions or ciccumsumces exist or because of
11pplicablc 1.nws i;r govcmmcnr regulations. Nothing herein i~ to be constrncd ns perrni~ion or as n recommendation to infringe any patent.
500 Gan'ison Road, Georgetown, South Carolina 29440 84 3-5 46-0600 800-373·2478 Fax: [phone]
email: [e-mail] www.agruamerica.com
© Agrn Ame.J'ic:1, !J,c. 2011
I I ') l 1,
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Energy
Client: Fuels Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB
Tit! e of Computations
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Signature
Printed Name
(peer reviewer) Title Associate Engineer
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
Signature
Title
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Signature
Title
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date
SC0634.Seismic Deformation.20121128.doc
rinci paJ Engineer
By Checked by
Geosyntec t>
Project/
Proposal No.;
Task No.
consultants
SC0634
02
/;J.,/1 9'/J 2.
Datf
L 1_,/z, /Lz ...
Date
Date' '
Date
Approval
Written by: J. Griffin Date: 11/2.8/12
Client: Energy
Fuels
Project: White Mesa Mill-
Cells SA &SB
Reviewed by:
Project/
Proposal No.:
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 1 of 3
S. Fitzwilliam Date: l2-I 21 LJ2 ... r J
SC0634 Task
No.: oz.
PERMANENT SEISMIC DEFORMATION ANALYSIS
CELLS SA AND SB
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this analysis is to evaluate the seismically induced permanent
deformation of the embankments for Cells SA and SB at the White Mesa Mill Facility
located in Blanding, Utah.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Seismic deformation is a function of average acceleration of the sliding mass and the
yield acceleration. Geosyntec used the Makdisi and Seed (Attachment A) method to
estimate permanent seismic deformations, based on yield accelerations determined from
pseudo-static limit equilibrium analyses, design earthquake motions determined from
documented sources, and the attached design charts (Makdisi and Seed, 1978).
Three cross-sections were selected for analysis and are shown in Figure 1. The first
cross section, Section A-A', is a west-east cross section that models Cell SA filled with
tailings and Cell SB empty. The section spans Cells SA and SB, with berm slopes
inclined at approximately 2: I (Horizontal:Vertical) and a base grade sloping toward the
berm at approximately 1 percent. The second cross section, Section B-B', is a north-
south cross section that models Cell SA before filling and spans the berm separating the
southern portion of existing Cell 4B and Cell SA. Section B-B' was modeled with Cell
4B full of tailings and Cell SA empty. Both sections were modeled without a liner on
the empty cell in order to evaluate berm stability. The third cross section, Section C-C'
is a north-south cross section that spans the embankment on the south side of Cell SA.
Section C-C' is modeled with Cell SA filled with tailings. The embankment back slope
is inclined at 3: 1.
DESIGN CRITERION
In accordance with the current state of practice, acceptable seismically induced
permanent deformations are less than 6 to 12 inches for waste mass configurations
SC0634.Seismic Defomiation.20121128.doc
Written by: J. Griffin Date: 11/28/12
Client: Energy
Fuels
Project: White Mesa Mill-
Cells 5A &5B
Reviewed by:
Project/
Proposal No.:
GeosyntecD
consultants
Page 2 of 3
S. Fitzwilliam Date: LJ,/Z1/f1. I
SC0634 Task
No.: 02
(Seed and Bonaparte, 1992). To evaluate seismically induced permanent deformations
at Cells SA and SB, Geosyntec established a maximum seismically induced deformation
of 6 inches as the design criterion.
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the site was previously evaluated in the Cell 4
Design Report (UMETCO, 1988) as referenced by MFG, Inc. in a letter to International
Uranium Corporation (presently Energy Fuels) dated 27 November 2006 (Attachment
C). The design report indicates that the maximum acceleration at the site is 0.10 g,
representing a 2 percent probability of exceed·ance within 50 years (approximate return
period of 2,500 years). The report states that this design acceleration is suitable for
operational conditions at site.
DEFORMATION ANALYSES
Estimating the seismically induced deformations includes the following steps,
summarized in Table 1 :
1. Perform pseudostatic slope stability analyses to evaluate the yield acceleration
(ky) resulting in a factor of safety of 1.0 for the critical cross sections.
The results of the pseudostatic slope stability evaluation for each cross section
are provided in Table 1. These values were determined using the computer
software SLOPE/W 2004 (Version 6.22) developed by Geo-Slope International
Ltd. (2004).
2. Estimate kmax (the maximum average acceleration for a potential sliding mass
extending to a specified depth y) using the upper bound for observed motions at
earth dams reported by Harder (Harder, 1991 ), through the following two steps:
a. Estimate value of acceleration at the top of the embankment, Umax based
on the Harder (1991) curve (included in Attachment D), the acceleration
at the crest of the berm, ilmax, is estimated to be 0.35 g;
b. Calculate kmax as 0.35 times Umax based on the Makdisi and Seed curve in
Attachment A (Figure 7 in Makdisi and Seed, 1978).
SC0634.Seismic Defonnation.20121128.doc
Written by: J. Griffin Date: 11/28/12
Client: Energy
Fuels
Project: White Mesa Mill-
Cells SA &SB
Reviewed by:
Project/
Proposal No.:
GeosyntecD
consultants
Page 3 of 3
S. Fitzwilliam Date: l1,.h.i/~2 r J
SC0634 Task
No.: 02
3. Calculate the ratio of kylkmax for each cross section and compute resulting
deformations based on the Makdisi and Seed Simplified Method (see Figure 10
in Attachment A). Figure 10 displays an upper bound of 1.0 for kylkmax;
therefore, if the ratio of kylkmax exceeds 1.0, seismically induced deformations
are estimated to be minimal (less than 1 centimeter or 0.4 inches).
Table 1: Seismic Deformation Analyses Results
Cross PGA ky Umax kmax ky/kmax 6 (cm) Section (g)
A-A' 0.1 0.65g 0.35g 0.12g 5.4 <1
B-B' 0.1 0.66g 0.35g 0.12g 5.5 <1
C-C' 0.1 0.51g 0.35g 0.12g 4.2 <1
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Results of the permanent deformation analysis indicate that the expected seismically
induced permanent deformation is expected to be minimal, and significantly less than
the design criterion of 6 inches.
REFERENCES
Harder, L.F., Jr. [1991], "Performance of Earth Dams During the Loma Prieta
Earthquake," Proc. Second International Conference on Recent Advances in
Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, University of Missouri,
Rolla, pp. 11-15.
Makdisi and Seed [1978], "Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment
Earthquake Induced Deformation," Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division,
ASCE, Vol 104, No. GT7, pp 849-867.
MFG, Inc. [2006], "White Mesa Uranium Facility, Cell 4 Seismic Study, Blanding,
Utah," letter to International Uranium (USA) Corporation, dated 27 November 2006.
Seed, H.B., and Bonaparte, R., [1992], "Seismic Analysis and Design of Lined Waste
Fills: Current Practice," Proceedings of ASCE Specialty Conference on Stability and
Performance of Slopes and Embankments -II, pp. 1521 -1545.
SC0634.Seismic Deformation.20121128.doc
,.
e
0
• I .
I • i ~
l ;
I ~ I ~ t
~· ' \
J .-} -
(
I J·, ' 1
) I
/
.I I
,/ (' ,.
I r,.
,. / \ !.,i ' ... ,, ', ..
WATER El 5554,9 ,,
~ CELL 4A BORING
' I •'\
t ~/
, .~--:-11
I
(. . ,, I -" 1.,.., ·) ........ ..,,,,,..
» .. \ .. 'j?' . '
; ( -··
11
\Jl1,
1" "' ,N J11 '1 • lf 1
.-
I
I""\ ..... J ,. \ ,·~:r:h, .\
I'
WAT[R (j 55139 II
• '
'·,·\;/' .I--::,·,-
[' .. ,• ;, ( ' .
/
h6,ilR&" 1
~
_.,,
/
t' (
i I \
~, ~\
PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWINGS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
... r
LEGEND
JUNE' ,011 l:XISTING GROUND ~lAJOR CONTOUR ( 101
JIJNE2011 EXISTWIIG GROVNO MNOA CONJOURl2l
[;:XISTINGFENCE
PFICPOS£0 GRAOtMG ~O~ CONTOUR j10 I
PROPOS(C CRAOINC MINOR CONTOUR {Tl
PROPOSEO OR,'DING LIMIT s, ~t~llCCAllCet ~,~u,:-
PRELIMINARY VOWME REPORT
AINE :?Ot1 F.lOSTING SUAFACE VS REVIS£0Cl:U 5A~$EDGRAOING'
CUT" 1,228.'92'J CUBIC YARD$
FU" 198,323 CUBIC YARDS
IET~ t,002G06C~iCYAROS~cur"
JUNE 2011 EXISTING SURF ACF vs FU:v1sr::o cr::1 L SB PROPOSF.C GRADING
cvr• t.l)l.10!)0M!le"'"""°"'
""·~..st)C..U,C:1~
Mfl I ~C\,ll>C'fNIU'II ,Cl.J'll,
{
i, .,a' j
t=;,r,U'lli,,n;l"l
Geosyntece> ENEJfGY~IIIC.
con.sultmn,
1M7~""'NC1t0BERtl.o.RDQ1'11),9UTEl'!l0 !~;~~.~
liiii
..... ,.~-==-~IJIMIM'jl r.a)Ci.,._.H_
CELL 5A AND 58 PROPOSED GRADING
CELL 5A ANO 58 PRELIMINARY CELL DESIGN
,....,.._.....,.~,0111:a...c-o rco>,-~n:....:•m11 --lN.ns11t.ou:o
WHllloMESA MILL
BLANOINO, UTAH
REVCIIC)J!1
OTC .... ocrol!OR20
O >a
---...-_1_v_2
t
I
i 13: '"" .---~ .a_::s--
.'.3 i·~
'~ ;~
13898 JULY 1978 I(,:. T ...SO'IIIC GT7
JOURNAL OF THE
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING DIVISION
SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE FOR ESTIMATING DAM l73f
AND EMBANKMENT EARTHQUAKE-INDUCED '___....I.
DEFORMATIONS
By Faiz I. Makdisi,1 A. M. ASCE and H. Bolton Seed,2 F. ASCE
INTRODUCTION
In the past decade major advances have been achieved m analyzing the stability
of dams and embankments during earthquake loadlllg. Newmark (13) and Seed
(18) proposed methods of analysis for predicting the permanent displacements
of dams subjected to earthquake shaklllg and suggested this as a criterion of
performance as opposed to the concept of a factor of safety based on limit
equilibrium principles. Seed and Martin (26) used the shear beam analysis to
study the dynamic response of embankments to seismic loads and presented
a rational method for the calculatio.n of dynamic seismic coefficients for earth
dams. Ambraseys and Sanna (1) adopted the same procedi,re to study the response
of embankments to a variety of earthquake motions.
Later the fin.ite element method was mtroduced to study the two-dimensional
response of embankments (5,7) and the equivalent llllear method (21) was used
successfully to rep1esent the strain-dependent nonlinear behavior of soils. In
addition the nature of the behavior of soils during cyclic loadlllg has been the
subject of extensive research (10,20,23,29). Both the improvement m the analytical
tools to study the response of embankments and the knowledge of material
behavior during cyclic loading led to th.e developme.nt of a more rational approach
to the study of stability of embankments during seismic loading. Such an approach
was used successfully to analyze the Sheffield Dam failure during the 1925
Santa Barbara earthquake (24) and the behavior of the San Fern.ando Dams
during the 1971 earthquake (25). This method has since been used extensively
in the design and analysis of many large dams in the State of California and
elsewhere.
Note.-Discussion open until December I, 1978. To extend the closi.Dg date one month,
a wntten request mu.st be filed with the Editor of Technical Publications, ASCE. This
paper is pan of the copyrighted Journ.al of the Gcotcchnical Engineering Division,
Proceedings of the Atllerica.11 Society of Civil Engineers. Vol. 104, No. GT7, July, 1978.
Manuscript was submitted for review for possible publication on August 30, 19n.
'Project Engr., Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Francisco, Calif. 2Prof. of Civ. Engrg., Univ. of California, Berkel.ey, Calif.
849
:i11 ,I I
I
!
:H
1!
'.\I
'
I, ,,
850 JULY 1978 GT7
From the study of the performance of embankments during strong earthquakes,
two distinct types of behavior may be discerned: (1) That associated with loose
to medium dense sandy embankments, susceptible to rapid increases in pore
pressure due to cyclic loading resulting in the development of pore pressures
equal to the overburden pressure in large portions of the embankment, associated
reductions in shear strength, and potentially large movements leading to almost
complete failure; and (2) the behavior associated with compacted cohesive clays,
dry sands, and some dense sands; here the potential for buildup of pore pressures
is much less than that associated with loose to medium dense sands, the resulting
cyclic strains are usually quite small, and the material retains most of its static
undrained shearing resistance so that the resulting post-earthquake behavior
is a limited permanent deformation of the embankment.
The dynamic analysis procedure proposed by Seed, et al. (25) has been used
to predict adequately both types of embankment behavior using the "Strain
Potential" concept. Procedures for integrating strain potentials to obtain the
overall deformation of an embankment have been proposed by Seed, et al.
(25), Lee (9), and Serff, et al. (27).
The dynamic analysis approach has been recommended by the Committee
on Earthquakes of the International Commission on Large Dams (3): "high
embankment dams whose failure may cause loss-of-life or major damage should
be designed by the conventional method at first, followed by a dynamic analysis
in order to investigate any deficiencies which may exist in the pseudo-statical
design of the dam." For low dams in remote areas the Committee recommended
the use of conventional pseudostatic methods using a constant horizontal seismic
coefficient selected on the basis of the seismicity of the area. However, the
inadequacy of the pseudostatic approach to predict the behavior of embankments
during earthquakes has been clearly recognized and demonstrated (19,24,25,26,
28). Furthermore in the same report (3) the Commission refers to the conventional
method as follows: "There is a need for early revision of the conventional
method since the results of dynamic analyses, model tests and observations
of existing dams show that the horiz.ontal acceleration due to earthquake forces
varies throughout the height of the dam . . . in several instances, this method
predicts a safe condition for dams which are known to have had major slides."
It is this need for a simple yet rational approach to the seismic design of
small embankments that prompted the development of the simplified procedure
described herein.
This approximate method uses the concept originally proposed by Ne'l\<,nark
(13) for calculating permanent deformations but it is based on an evaluation
of the dynamic response of the embankment as proposed by Seed and Martin
(26) rather than rigid body behavior. It assumes that failure occurs on a
well-defmed slip surface and that the material behaves elastically at stress levels
below failure but develops a perfectly plastic behavior above yield. The method
involves the following steps:
L A yield acceleration, i.e., an acceleration at which a potential sliding surface
would develop a factor of safety of unity is determined. Values of yield
acceleration are a function of the embankment geometry, the undrained strength
of the material (or the reduced strength due to shaking), and the location of
the potential sliding mass.
GT7 DEFORMATIONS 851
2. Earthquake induced accelerations in the embankment are determined using
dynamic response analyses. Finite element procedures using strain-dependent
soil properties can be used for calculating time histories of acceleration, or
simpler one-dimensional techniques might be used for the same purpose. From
these analyses, time histories of average accelerations for various potential sliding
masses can be determined.
3. For a given potential sliding mass, when the induced acceleration exceeds
the calculated yield acceleration, movements are assumed to occur along the
direction of the failure plane and the magnitude of the displacement is evaluated
by a simple double integration procedure.
The method has been applied to dams with heights in the range of 100 ft-200
ft (30 m-60 m), and constructed of compacted cohesive soils or very dense
cohesionless soils, but may be applicable to higher embankments. A similar
approach has been proposed by Sarma (16) using the assumption of a rigid
block on an inclined plane rather than a deformable earth structure that responds
with differential motions to the imposed base excitation.
In the following sections the steps involved in the analyses will be described
in detail and design curves prepared on the basis of analyzed cases will be
presented, together with an example problem to illustrate the use of the method.
Note, however, that the method is an approximate one and involves simplifying
assumptions. The design curves are averages based on a limited number of
cases analyzed and should be updated as more data become available and more
cases are studied.
DETERMINATION OF YIELD ACCELERATION
The yield acceleration, ky, is def med as that average acceleration producing
a horiz.ontal inertia force on a potential sliding mass so as to produce a factor
of safety of unity and thus cause it to experience permanent displacements.
For soils that do not develop large cyclic strains or pore pressures and maintain
most of their original strength after earthquake shaking, the value of ky can
be calculated by stability analyses using limiting equilibrium methods. In conven-
tional slope stability analyses the strength of the material is defmed as either
the maximum deviator stress in an undrained test, or the stress level that would
cause a certain allowable axial strain, say 10%, in a test specimen. However,
the behavior of the material under cyclic loading conditions is different than
that under static conditions. Due to the transient nature of the earthquake loading,
an embankment may be subjected to a number of stress pulses at levels equal
to or higher than its static failure stress that simply produce some permanent
deformation rather than complete failure. Thus the yield strength is defmed,
for the purpose of this analysis, as that maximum stress level below which
the material exhibits a near elastic behavior (when subjected to cyclic stresses
of numbers and frequencies similar to those induced by earthquake shaking)
and above which the material exhibits permanent plastic deformation of magni-
tudes dependent on the number and frequency of the pulses applied. Fig. I
shows the concept of cyclic yield strength. The material in this case has a
cyclic yield strength equal to about 90% of its static undrained strength and
as shown in Fig. l(a) the application of 100 cycles of stress amounting to 80%
'
852 JULY 1978 . GT7
of the undrained strength resulted in essentially an elastic behavior with very
little pennanent deformation. On the other hand, the application of 10 cycles
of stress level equal to 95% of the static undrained strength led to substantial
permanent strain as shown in Fig. l(b ). On loading the material monotonically
to failure after the series of cyclic stress applications, the material was found
to retain the original undrained strength. This type of behavior is associated
with various types of soils that exhibit small increases in pore pressure during
cyclic loading. This would include clayey materials, dry or partially saturated
cohesionless soils. or very dense saturated cohesionless materials that will not
undergo significant deformations, even under cyclic loading conditions, unless
the undrained static strength of the soil is exceeded.
Seed and Chan (20) conducted cyclic tests on samples of undisturbed and
compacted silty clays and found that for conditions of no stress reversal and
for different values of initial and cyclic stresses, the total stress required to
produce large defonnations in IO cycles and I 00 cycles ranged between 90%-110%
of the undrained static strength.
Sangrey. et al. (15) investigated the effective stress response of clay under
repeated loading. They tested undisturbed samples of clay (LL = 28, Pl =
10) and found that the cyclic yield strength of this material was of the order
of 60% of its static undrained strength.
.. _ --~-·---'!iJfQI, --....-S!'ww. .. ·--·---==«1 ... 14~ i -~, ....
IOOC,a1 . DCfd,n,
.,,,.._. Sw,111
W IM
FIG. 1.-Determination of Dynamic Yield Strength
Rahman (14) performed similar tests on remolded samples of a brittle silty
clay (LL= 91, PI= 49) and found that the cyclic yield strength was a function
of the initial effective conf"ming pressure. For practical ranges of effective
confining pressures the cyclic yield strength for this material ranged between
80%-95% of its static undrained strength. At cyclic stress levels below the
yield strength. in all cases, the material reached equilibrium and assumed an
elastic behavior at strain levels less than 2% irrespective of the number of
stress cycles applied.
Thiers and Seed (28) performed tests on undisturbed and remolded samples
of different clayey materials to determine the reduction in static undrained strength
due to cyclic loading. Their results are summarized in Fig. 2 which shows
the reduction in undrained strength after cyclic loading as a function of the
ratio of the 0 maximum cyclic strain" to the "static failure strain." These results
were obtained from strain controlled cyclic tests; after the application of 200
cycles of a certain strain amplitude, the sample was loaded to failure monotonically
at a strain rate of 3%/min. Thus from Fig. 2 it could be argued that if a
clay is subjected to 200 cycles of strain with an amplitude less than half its
static failure strain, the material may be expected to retain at least 90% of
its original static undrained strength.
GT7 DEFORMATIONS 853
Andersen (2), on the ba.sis of cyclic simple shear tests on samples of Drammen
clay, determined that the reduction in undrained shear strength. was found to
be less than 25% as long as the cyclic shear strain was less than ±3% even
after 1,000 cycles. Some Nonh Sea clays, however, have shown a strength
reduction of up to 40% for the same level of cyclic loading.
On the basis of the experimental data reported previously and for values
TABLE 1.-Maxlmum Cyclic Shear Strains Calculated from Dynamic Finiie Element
Response Analyses
Maximum
Embankment Maximum shear
height. Slope. base accel-strain, as a Magnitude in feet H:V eration.g percentage (1)
6-1/2 (Caltech record)
6-1/2 (Caltech record)
6-1/2 (Caltech record)
6-1/2 (Lake Hughes record)
6-1/2 (Caltech record)
7-1/2 (Taft record)
7-1 /2 (Taft record)
8-1 / 4 (S-1 record}
8-1/4 (S-1 recor~)
Note: l ft = 0.305 m.
10~ a.ca X
0
!,.U_[p !o.H ~
i~.L--LlLJ
0 .
o~,;--· ---1---..L.---l
0 ,... ,.,._.,. .., a,.,..
......... 0-,.z..2
C> ........ SltJ"O.,·Z-3 0 . •
0 o, 10
PN• C?';'-"' s,_,.il'I,
,-.;;~ SI~"" il\,$Jofic. feu
0
(2}
1S
ISO
ISO
150
ISO
ISO
ISO
150
13S
FIG. 2.-Raduction in Static Undrained
Strength Due to CycJic Loading (29)
(3) (4) (5)
2:1 0.5 0.2--0.4
2:1 0.2 0.1-0.lS
2:1 o.s 0.2--0.3
2:1 0.2 0.1--0.lS
2-1 /2:1 o.s 0.2--0.3
2:1 0.5 0.2-0.5
2:1 0.2 0.1-0.2·
2:l 0.75 0.4-1.0 -0.4 0.2-0.S
_,.,.10
E:lomonti-iO~(II
Iv
--., .
F(II • f, 'tor, UJ L; + a-hi Ill di
n • numO•r or elements ,cJlonQ 1h11 stidinQ surface
>0,(1) • F(tl/w
FIG. 3.-Calculation of Average Acceler-
ation from Finite Element Response
Analysis
of cyclic shear strains calculated ftom earthquake response analyses, the value
of cyclic yield strength for a clayey material can be estimated. In most cases
this value would appear to be 80% or more of the static undrained strength.
This value in tum may be used in an appropriate method of stability analysis
lo calculate the corresponding yield acceleration.
Finite element response analyses (as will be described later) have been carried
out to calculate time histories of crest acceleration and average acceleration
I ~ ~ J ,
A I ~ I ~ I ' • ~, ll?.
. ~
ill 0
~I~ .~ -~i
ll
~~ <tj
i .I
,!;1!li·· .. l· a
111 !l'.
:ftil m .~
ifil
;[~ :iw .j~ .. ~,
·~' :;J~
11 il!il
' ,:~ ,in:.
i!~
Ii~~
" ~t ;,
·~1 ~~i
854 JULY 1978 GT7
for various potential sliding masses. The method of analysis employs the
equivalent linear technique with strain-dependent modulus and damping. The
ranges of calculated maximum shear strains, for different magnitude earthquakes
and different embankment characteristics, are presented in Table 1. It can be
seen from Table 1 that the maximum cyclic shear strain induced during the
earthquakes ranged between 0.1 % for a magnitude 6-1 /2 eanhquake with a
base acceleration of 0.2 g and 1% for a magnitude 8-1/4 earthquake with a
base acceleration of 0.75 g. For the compacted clayey material encountered
in dam embankments "static failure strain" values usually range between 3%-10%,
depending on whether the material was compacted on the dry or wet side of
the optimum moisture content. Thus in both instances the ratio of the "cyclic
strain" to ''static failure strain" is less than 0.5.
It seems reasonable, therefore, to assume that for these compacted cohesive
soils, very little reduction in strength may be expected as a result of strong
earthquake loading of the magnitude described previously.
Once the cyclic yield strength is defined, the calculation of the yield acceleration
can be achieved by using one of the available methods of stability analysis.
In the present study the ordinary method of slices has been used to calculate
the yield acceleration for circular slip surfaces using a pseudostatic analysis.
As an alternative one of the writers (18) has suggested a method of combining
both effective and total stress approaches, where the shear strength on the
failure plane during the earthquake is considered to be a function of the initial
effective normal stress on that same plane before the earthquake. This method
is applicable to noncircular slip surfaces and the horizontal inertia force resulting
in a factor of safety of unity can readily be calculated.
Having determined the yield acceleration for a certain location of the slip
surface, the next step in the analysis is to determine the time history of
earthquake-induced average accelerations for that particular sliding mass. This
will be treated in the following section.
DETERMINATION OF EARrao.UAXE INDUCED ACCELERATION
In order for the permanent deformations to be calculated for a particular
slip surface, the time history of earthquake induced average accelerations must
first be determined.
Two-dimensional finite element procedures using equivalent linear strain-
dependent properties are available (6) and have been shown to provide response
values in good agreement with measured values (8) and with closed-form
one-dimensional wave propagation solutions (17).
For most of the case studies of embankments used in the present analysis,
the response calculation was performed using the finite element computer program
QUAD-4 (6) with strain-dependent modulus and damping. The program uses
the Rayleigh damping approach and allows for variable damping to be used
in different elements.
To calculate the time history of average acceleration for a specified sliding
mass, the method descnl,ed by Chopra (4) was adopted in the present study.
The imite element calculation provides time histories of stresses for every element
in the embankment. As shown in Fig. 3, at each time step the forces acting
along the boundary of the sliding mass are calculated from the corresponding
GT7 DEFORMATIONS 855
normal and shear stresses of the finite elements along that boundary. The resultant
of these forces divided by the weight of the sliding mass would give the average
acceleration, k.v(t), acting on the sliding mass at that instant in time. The process
is repeated for every time step to calculate the entire time history of average
acceleration.
For a 150-ft (46-m) high dam subjected to 30 sec of the Taft earthquake
record scaled to produce a maximum base acceleration of 0.2 g, the variation .. ,-----------------------, ----. .• L-~~~--.~~~~-.-~~~~~~~~--i
.z j n!,"li, J!, •.. f..11! I
-.z1 'I '~"IP · t:i ' · " · I
-.• i------+--'---..;...------------1 -::.__ ...... _.._ ....... _...__._...__._..,___,_ ....... __,~ ...... __,'--....___.
.• i-------r---------------'..:..:--1
•2 L AA dl .. jd& 1Hu I
:: : t . , 11 L• , • 1 • I
-:: t I I I • • I • • t ,
·: A.An~.1..01.. .Q
·· 1 ........ I ::: . ¢?'H IV"?/(,: ·:~o~MJf:: ; ~ ..
• -t "l"IH•O. IZ
::jl . rt·'t~~\A: ·:t.tv ... : ··!
. i
::~ ,,.nm.
1
=:: t ., I
o 10 za ,o
TJ"E-JtCOICDS
FIG. 4.-Time Histories of Average Acceleration for Various Depths of Potential Sliding
Mass
of the time history of k •• with the depth of the sliding mass within the embankment,
together with the time history of crest accelerations, is shown in Fig. 4.
Comparing the time history of crest acceleration with that of the average
acceleration for different depths of the potential sliding mass, the similarity
in the frequency content is readily apparent (it generally reflects the first natural
period of the embankment), while the amplitudes are shown to decrease as
the depth of the sliding mass increases towards the base of the embankment.
The maximum crest acceleration is designated by u....._, and k....,. is the maximum
1
·t ~
i i
I I
i :r !I l
J,,
-~ J
•l
856 JULY 1978 GT7
average acceleration for a potential sliding mass extending to a specified depth, y.
It would be desirable to establish a relationship showing the variation of
the maximum acceleration ratio, k.,.u./ufAV,, with depth for a range of embank-
ments and earthquake loading conditions. It would then be sufficient, for design
purposes, to estimate the maximum crest acceleration in a given embankment
due to a specified earthquake and use this relationship to determine the maximum
average acceleration for any depth of the potential sliding mass. A simplified
procedure to estimate the maximum crest acceleration and the natural period
--o. I ' .,.., .
>,;/ HJ ::f--. • o.. f ; : .' ·r ' J ..
"· : ! f ~
' : i .... 1 _if
i
I (Q)
...1....-..-l __ o, o, 0
c....,_,........,...,. c.-...... ~,-~,..
(~
o,.,--,~
AG. 5.-EI Centro Record (12): (a) Variation of Maximum Average Acceleration with
Depth of Sliding; (b) Variation of Ratio of Average Acceleration to Maximum Crest
Acceleration with Depth of Sliding Surface
~· 7/>
c.......~--.--•• ~·Z)"""'""M#
w
or,. ,oo
F1G. &.-Average of Eight Strong Motion Records (1): (a) Variation of Maximum
Average Acceleration with Depth of Sliding Mass; (b) Variation of Ratio of Maximum
Average Acceleration to Maximum Crest Acceleration with Depth of Sliding Surface
of an embankment subjected to a given base motion is described in Appendix
A of Ref. IL
To determine the variation of maximum acceleration ratio with depth, use
was made of published results of response computations using the one-dimensional
shear slice method with visco-elastic material properties (1,26). Manin (12)
calculated the response of embankments ranging in height between 100 ft-600
ft (30 m-180 m) and with shear wave velocities between 300 fps-1,000 fps (92
m/s-300 m/s). Using a constant shear modulus and a damping factor of 0.2,
GT7 DEFORMATIONS 857
the average acceleration histories for various levels were computed for embank-
ments subjected to ground accelerations recorded in the El Centro earthquake
of 1940. The variation of the maximum average acceleration, k-..., with depth
for these embankments with natural periods ranging between 0.26 sec-5.22 sec
is presented in Fig. S(a). The maximum average acceleration in Fig. S(a) is
normalized with respect to the maximum crest acceleration and the ratio,
k-~lumu., plotted as a function of tb.e depth of the sliding mass is presented
in Fig. S(b).
Ambraseys and Sanna (I) used essentially the same method reported by Seed
and Martin (26) and calculated the response of embankments with natural periods
ranging between 0.25 sec and 3.0 sec. They presented their results in terms
of average response for eight strong motio.n records. The variation of maximum
average acceleration with depth based on the results reported by Ambraseys.
and Sarma (I) is shown in Fig. 6(a) and lb.at for the maxim.um acceleration
ratio, k,,,01/um.-., is shown in Fig. 6(b). A summary of the results obtained
0
o.l ~,L~-~ 01
O• ' . j i ~[ ~
06 " o.•
..........
OA .... o,o O>
1 ol IY'>bl»>Y , t I 0 ...... -• -· ---
•a,a.r,J ...
FIG. 7.-Variation of Maximum Acceler-
ation Ratio with Depth of Sliding Mass
.. ~
1
r ---+--_J'° !
t:::::::::::, , I l I t ,Jo
ODOI O.OI OJ ,0
Sl'laO' S11oift-"A.
FIG. 8.-Shaar Modulus and Damping
Characteristics Used in Response
Computations
from the different shear slice response calculations mentioned previously is
presented in Fig. 7 together with results obtained from finite clement calculations
made in the present study. As can be seen from Fig. 7 the shape of the curves
obtained using the shear slice method and the finite element method are very
similar. The dashed curve in Fig. 7 is an average relationship of all data considered.
The maximum difference between the envelope of all data and the average
relationship ranges from ± 10% to ±20% for the upper portion of the embankment
and from ±20% to ±30% for the lower portion of the embankment.
Considering the approximate nature of the proposed method of analysis, the
use of the average relationship shown in Fig. 7 for determining the maximum
average acceleration for a potential sliding mass based on the maximum crest
acceleration is considered accurate enough for practical purposes. For design
computations where a conservative estimate of the accelerations is desired the
uppe.r bound curve sh.own in Fig. 7 may be used leading to values that are
!Oo/o-30% higher than those estimated using the average relati.onship.
""""'
!
~ I l
I
I
I ,I ;I ,,
i
:I ',
,,
,;
t: .! ,.
t> ~-~ t,;s?
:S-; .. ,;:.
. '
;{!
. i-T
1> L;,
~ 'i ,,~ !k ~;Ls)
w'.
858 JULY 1978 GT7
CALCULATlON OF PERMANENT DEfORMATIONS
Once the yield acceleration and the time history of average induced acceleration
for a potential sliding mass have been determined, the permanent displaceme.n.ts
can readily be calculated.
By assuming a direction of the sliding plane and writing the equation of
TABLE 2.-Embankment Characteristics for Magnitude 6-1 /2 Earthquake
Embank-
Case ment Base
num-descrip-Height, accefer-T0 , in
ber tion in feet ation.g seconds k,. ••. g Symbol"
(1} (2) (3) (4) (St (6)b (7)
l Eumple ISO 0.2 0.8 (1) 0.31 • slope (Caltech (2) 0.12 • =2:1 record)
k-
=60
2 Example 150 0.5 1.08 (1) 0.4 0
slope (Caltech (2) 0.18 D
= 2:1 record)
k2 ..... = 60
3 Example 150 o.s 0.84 (l) 0.33 0
slope (Lake (2) 0.16 D.
= 2:1 Hughes
k2...,. record)
= 80
4 Example 150 o.s 0.95 (1) 0.49 ¢
slope= (Caltech (2) 0.22 <;/
2-l /2:1 record)
k2a, ..
= 80 s Example 75 0.5 0.6 (1) 0.86 Cl
slope (Caltech (2) 0.26 ti
= 2:1 record)
k-
= 60
•Calculated ftrst natural period of the embankmen1.
bMaximum value of time his1ory of: (1) Crest acceleration; and (2) average acceleration
for sliding mass extcndiog thJough full height of embankment.
"Legend used in F:ig. 9(a).
Note: I fl == 0.30S m.
motion for the sliding mass along such a plane, the displacements that would
occur any time the induced acceleration exceeds the yield acceleration may
be evaluated by simple numerical integration. For the purposes of the soil types
considered in this study, the yield acceleration was assumed to be constant
throughout the earthquake.
The direction of motion for a potential sliding mass once yielding occurs
------------------------··--
GT7 DEFORMATIONS 859
was assumed to be along a horizontal plane. This mode of deformation is not
uncommon for embankments subjected to strong earthquake sh.a.king, and is
manifested in many cases in the field by the development of longitudinal cracks
along the crest of the embankment. However studies made for other directions
of the sliding surface showed that this factor had little effect on the computed
displacements (11).
To calculate an order of magnitude of the deformations induced ill embankments
due to strong shaking a number of cases have been analyl.ed during the course
of this study. The height of embankments considered ranged between 75 ft-150
ft (23 m-46 m) with varying slopes and material properties. The embankments
were subjected to ground accelerations representing three different earthquake
magnitudes: 6-1 /2, 7-1 /2, and 8-1 / 4.
The method used for calculating the response, as mentioned earlier, is a
time-step finite clement analysis u.sing the equivalent linear method. The strain-
dependent modulus and damping relations for the soils used in this study are
.
--~Yz s• ·-''n. a '8 . •ocf-. ? a : . . ' .
e . . . ' • • . . I • . ! . s I . • . n . . 1 . i • . . . t . 0 . f • . . • . 0 . • : . ' . ! • ; • 1 g • I . • . . g o,t-. ' . .
! .
l•l 161
0.0, 0 cu O.< 04 cu ,_o o cu 0A o:6 ... <O ',/l.._ y,,..,.
FIG. 9.-Variation of Permanent Displacement with Yield Acceleration: (a} Magnitude
6-1 /2 Eanhquake; (b) Magnitude 7-1 /2 Earthquake
presented in Fig. 8. The response computation for each base motion was repeated
for a number of iterations (mostly 3-4) until strain compatible ma.terial properties
were obtained. In each case both time histories of crest acceleration and the
average acceleration for a potential sliding mass extending through almost the
full height of the embankment were calculated, together with the first natural
period of the embankme.nt. In one case however, time histories of average
acceleration for slidizlg surfaces at five different levels in the em~ent were
obtained (see Fig. 4), and the corresponding permanent deformations for each
time history were calculated for different values of yield acceleration. It was
found that for the same ratio of yield acceleration to maximum average
acccle.ration at each level, the computed deformations varied uniformly between
a maximum value obtained using the crest acceleration time history to a minimum
value obtained using the time history of average acceleration for a sliding mass
extending through the full height of the embankment. Thus it was considered
'
,1
;
' j
~ I ~Ji '" 1-~ '1 $. -~
-?;
'·}
:t ,. ~ '?. ~. ;1 ~. ~ ~· l1 :ffl ij
I ;.,
i :,, ii;!'
860 JULY 1978 GT7
sufficient for the remaining cases to compute the deformations only for these
.two levels.
Table 2 shows details of the embankments analyzed using ground motions
representative of a magnitude 6-1/2 earthquake. The two rock motions used
were those recorded at the Cal Tech Seismographic Laboratory (S90W Compo-
nent) and at Lake Hughes Station No. 12 (N12E) du.ring the 1971 San Femando
earthquake, with maximum accelerations scaled to 0.2 g and 0.5 g. The computed
natural periods and maximum values of the acceleration time histories are also
presented m. Table 2. The computed natural periods ranged between a value
of 0.6 sec for the 75-ft (23-m) high embankment to a value of 1.08 sec for
the 150-ft (46-m) high embankment. Because of the nonlinear strain-dependent
TABLE 3.-Embankment Characteristics for Magnitude 7-1/2 Earthquake
Embank-
Case ment Base
num-descrip-Height, acceler-T0, in
ber ti.Jn in feet ation, g seconds k .... , g Symbolc
(1) (2) (3) (4) (st (6,a' (7)
1 Example 1SO 0.2 0.86 (l) 0.41 • slope (Taft (2) 0.13 • = 2:1 record)
k-.
=60
2 Example 150 0.5 1.18 (I) 0.54 0
slope (Taft (2) 0.21 0
= 2:1 record)
k-
=60
3 Example ISO 0.2 0.76 (l) 0.46 0
slope= (Taft (2) O.iS t:,.
2-1/2:l record)
k2,,._
= 80
•eai.culated rust natural period of the embankment.
bMaximum value of time history of: (1) Crest acceleration; and (2) average acceleration
for sliding mass extending through full height of embankment.
e!.egcnd used in Fig. 9(b).
Note: l ft = 0.305 m.
behavior of the material, the cesponse of the embankment is highly dependent
on the amplitude of the base motion. This is cleady demonstrated m. the first
two cases in Table 2. where the same embankment was subjected to the same
ground acceleration history but with different maximum accelerations for each
case. In one instance, for a base acceleration of 0.2 g the calculated maximum
crest accelerations was 0.3 g with a magnification of 1.5 and a computed natural
period of the order of 0.8 sec. In the second case, for a base acceleration
of O.S g the computed maximum crest ac:celeration was 0.4 g with an attenuation
of 0.8 and a computed natural period of 1.1 sec.
From the time histories of induced acceleration calculated for all the cases
GT7 DEFORMATIONS 861
described in Table 2 and for various ratios of yield acceleration to maximum
average acceleration, k,./k,__, the permanent deformations were calculated by
numerical double integration. The results are presented in Fig. 9(a) which shows
that for relatively low values of yield acceleration, k,./k,-. of 0.2 for example,
the range of computed permanent displacements was of the order of 10 cm-70
cm (4 in.-28 in.). However, for larger values of k,./k..,.., say 0.5 or more,
the calculated displacements were less than 12 cm (4.8 in.). It should be emphasized
that for very low values of yield accelerations (in this case k,./k,,_ s 0.1).
the basic asswnptions used m. calculating the response by the finite element
TABLE 4.-Embankment Characteristics of Magnitude 8-1 /4 Earthquake
Embank-
Case ment Base
num-descrip-Height, acceler-T0, in
ber tion in fe&t ation, g seconds k....,..g Symbolc
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)" (6)b (7)
l Chabot 135 0.4 0.99 (l) 0.57 0
Dam (S-l Synth.
(average record)
proper•
ties)
Chabot 13S 0.4 1.07 (I) 0.53 I).
Dam (S-1 Synth.
(Lower record)
bound)
Chabot 135 0.4 0.83 (1) 0.68 0
Dam
(Upper
bound)
2 Example 150 0.7S 1.49 (l) 0.74 • slope (2) 0.34 • = 2:1
k2,aax
=60
•Calculated f"ust natural period of the embankment.
bMaximum value of time histo.ry of: (l) Cresl acceleration; and (2) average acceleration
for sliding mass extending through full height of embaukment.
cLegend used in Fig. lO(a).
Note: I ft = 0.305 m.
method, i.e., the equivalent linear behavior and the small strain theory, become
invalid. Consequently, the acceleration time histories calculated for such a case
do not represent the real field behavior and the calculated displacements based
on these time histories may not be realistic.
The procedure described previously was repeated for the case of a magnitude
7-1/2 earthquake. The base acceleration time history used for this analysis
was that recorded at Taft during the 1952 Kem County earthquake and scaled
to maximum accelerations of 0.2 g and 0.5 g. The details of the three cases
analyzed are presented in Table 3 and the results of the computations of the
w ~ ~ I m ~ w ~ ·t
J l ~ ft ~ i I ~ ~t i~ ;
<l [
ii ,.
r .J
' ,
;1 ·::i <~ ·.·l
'
·:1
·~
:j
:, < ;·~ ,!,
:';.:. ·.-;
1 !f 'i: a ·!,
·i.
M
>-'
:)
862 JULY 1978 GT7
permanent displacements are shown in Fig. 9(b). For a ratio of k,f kmu. of
0.2 the calculated displacements in this case ranged between 30 cm-200 cm
(12 in.-80 in.), and for ratios greater than 0.5 the displacements were less than
25 cm (0.8 ft).
In the cases analyzed for the 8-I/ 4 magnitude earthquake, an artificial
accclerogram proposed by Seed and Idriss (21) was used with maximum base
accelerations of 0.4 g and 0.=75 g. Two embankments were analyzed in this
case and their calculated natural periods ranged between 0.8 sec and 1.5 sec.
Table 4 shows the details of the calculations and in Fig. IO(a) the results of
the permanent displacement computations are presented. As can be seen from
Fig. IO(a) the permanent displacements computed for a ratio of k,Jkmu. of
0.2 ranged between 200 cm-700 cm (80 in.-28 in.), and for ratios higher than
0.5 the values were less than 100 cm (40 in.). Note in this case that values
of deformations calculated for a yield ratio less than 0.2 may not be realistic.
An envelope of the results obtained for each of the three earthquake loading
.._I ..... '/ ..
c_; ,-!J-:'
; .
!
S,: t..i:...2:
:#1 ~7~ i1
o..l ,.,
0
I
...
.
I . • .
o.•
a • . . . . . •
I o.• .,,,.._
I . • : . . I'~ .
I ' ' I o.a ,o 0 o..z 0.-00 o., lO .,; .....
AG. 10.-Variation of Permanent Displacement with Yield Acceleration: (a) Magni-
tude 8-1 / 4 Earthquake; (b) Summary of All Data
conditions is presented in Fig. lO(b) and reveals a large scatter in the computed
results reaching, in the case of the magnitude 6-1/2 earthquake, about one
order of magnitude.
It can reasonably be expected that for a potential sliding mass with a specified
yield acceleration, the magnitude of the permanent deformation induced by
a certain earthquake loading is controlled by the following factors: (I) The
amplitude of induced average accelerations, which is a function of the base
motion, the amplifying <:haracteristics of the embankment, and the location of
the sliding mass within the cmbanbnent; (2) the frequency content of the average
acceleration time history, which is governed by the embankment height and
stiffness characteristics, and is usually dominated by the first natural frequency
of the embankment; and (3) the duration of significant shaking, which is a
function of the magnitude of the specified earthquake.
Thus to reduce the large scatter exhibited in the data in Fig. lO(b ), the permanent
GT7 DEFORMATIONS 863
displacements for each embankment were normalized with respect to its calculated
first natural period, T0 , and with respect to the maximum value, kmu., of the
average acceleration time history used in the computation. The resulting norma-
lized permanent displacements for the three different earthquakes are presented
in Fig. l l(a). It may be seen that a substantial reduction in the scatter of
the data is achieved by this normalization procedure as evidenced by comparing
the results in Figs. IO(b) and l l(a). This shows that for the ranges of embankment
heights considered in this study [75 ft-150 ft (SO m-65 m)] the iu-st natural
period of the embankment and the maximum value of acceleration time history
may be considered as two of the parameters having a major influence on the
calculated permanent displacements. A vcrage curves for the normalized perma-
nent displacements based on the results in Fig. l l(a) arc presented in Fig.
ll(b). Although some scatter still exists in the results as shown in Fig. ll(a),
the average curves presented in Fig. ll(b) are considered adequate to provide
an order of magnitude of the induced permanent displacements for different
.... ,v .. l~N
I "' ~
i
~0.0.
coo,
=L ~ I ,.1 ~
0 0.: o" ~s 0.S LOO o.z ... 0.0 0.0 LO ..,,._ Y•-
RG. 11.-Variation of Yield Acceleration with: (a) Normalized Permanent Displac•
ment-Summary of All Data; and (b) Average Normalized Displacement
magnitude earthquakes. At yield acceleration ratios less than 0.2 the average
curves are shown as dashed lines since, as mentioned earlier, the calculated
displacements at these low ratios may be unrealistic.
Thus, to calculate the permanent deformation in an embankment constructed
of a soil that docs not change in strength significantly during an earthquake,
it is sufficient to determine its maximum crest acceleration, u,,,.,., and first
natural period, T0 , due to a specified earthquake. Then by the use of the
relationship presented in Fig. 7. the maximum value of average acceleration
history, k ....... for any level of the specified sliding mass may be determined.
Entering the curves in Fig. ll(b) with the appropriate values of k....,. and T0,
the permanent displacements can be determined for any value of yield acceleration
associated with that particular sliding surface.
It has been assumed earlier in this paper that in the majority of embankments,
permanent deformations usually occur due to slip of a sliding mass on a horizontal
failure plane. For those few instances where sliding might occur on an inclined
866 JULY 1978 GT7
strength of the material and in estimating the maximum accelerations in the
embankment. the calculated deformations for this 135-ft (40-m) clayey embask·
mcnt ranged between 0.1 ft-1.S ft (0.3 m--0.46 m). These approximatedisp~ment
values aro in good accord with the actual performance of the embankment
during the earthquake.
Whereas the method descnl>ed herein provides a rational approach to the
desip of embankments and offers a significant improvement over the conven-
tional pseudostatic approach, the nature of the approximations involved requires
that it be used with caution and good judgment especially in determining the
soil characteristics of the embankment to which it may be applied.
For I.aqe embankments, for embankments where failure might result in a
loss of life or major damage and property loss, or where soil conditions cannot
be detcnnincd with a significant degree of accuracy to warrant the use of the
method. the more rigorous dynamic method of analysis described earlier might
well provide a more satisfactory alternative for design purposes.
AcnOWLED<iMOT
The study described in this paper was conducted under the sponsorship of
the National Science Foundation (Grant ENV 75-21875). The support of the
National Science Foundation is gratefully acknowledged.
APPENIIIX,-REFERENCES
1. Ambraseys, N. N., aDd Sanna, S. K., ''The Response of Earth Dams to Strong
Earthquakes, .. Geot«h,uque, London, England, Vol. 17, SepL, 1967, pp. 181-213.
2. Andencn, K. H., "Behavior of Clay Subjected to Undrained Cyclic Loading,"
PT~gs, Conference 011 Bebavior of Off-Shore Structures," Trondheim, Norway,
Vol. I, 1976, pp. 392-403.
3. "A Review of Earthquake Resistant Design of Dams," Bulletin 27, International
CommissiOll 011 Large Dams. Mar., 1975.
4. Chopra, A. K., "Earthquake Effects ou Dams," thesis presented to the University
of California, at Berkeley, Calif., in 1966, in partial fulfillment of the reqllirem.ents
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
5. Clough, R. W., and Chopra. A. K., "Earthquake Stress Analysis in Earth Dams,,.
Jo11mol of the Engineering Mechanics Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. EM2, Proc.
Paper 4793, Apr., 1966, pp. 197-212.
6. Idriss, L M., ct al., "QUAD-4, A Computer Program for Evaluating the Seismic
Response of Soil Structures by Variable Damping Finite Elements." Report No. EERC
13 16, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
Calif., June, 1973.
7. Id:rits, I. M., and Seed, H. B., "Response of Eanh Banks During Earthquakes,"
J011mol of the Soil Mechanics and FoundaJions Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, No. SM3,
Pnx:. Paper S232, May, 1967, pp. 61-82.
8. Kovacs, W. D., Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., "Studies of Seismic Response of
Clay Banks," Journal of tlie Soil Mtchanlcs and Pounda1wns Divinon, ASCE, Vol.
97, No. SM2, Proc. Paper 7878, Feb., 1971, pp. 441-455.
9. Lee, K. L., "Seismic Permanent Deformations in Earth Dams,'' Report No. UCLA·
ENG,;-7491, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California al
Los Angdes, Los Angeles, Call}'., Dec., 1974.
10. Lee, K. L., and Seed, H. B., "Dy!la.mic Strellgth of Amsotropically Consolidated
Sand," Jo11nuzl of tire Soll Mechanics a11d Foundations DMsion, ASCE, Vol. 93,
No. SMS, Proc. Paper S4Sl, Sept., 1967, pp. 169-190.
11. Makdisi, F. I., and Seed, H. B., "A Simplified Procedure for Computing Maximum
GTI DEFORMATIONS 867
Cresl Acceleration and Natural Period for Embankments," Report No. UCB/ EERC-
77 /19, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of Califomia, Berkeley,
Calif .• 1977. 12. Martin, G. R., "The Response of Earth Dams to Earthquakes," thesis presented
to the University of Califomia, at Berkeley, Calif., in 1965, in panial fulfillment
of the requirements for the d.epee of Doctor of Philosophy.
13. Newmark., N. M., "Effects of Earthquakes 011 Dams and Embankme:nts," Geot«h-
niqu«, London, England. Vol. 5, No. 2, June, 1965.
14. Rahman, M. S., "Undrained Behavior of Salutated Normally Consolidated Clay Under
Rcpcatcd Loading," thesis presented to the Indian Institute of Technology, at
Kharahpur, India, in July, 1m. in partial falfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science.
15. Sangrey, 0 ., Henkel, D., 111d Esrig, M., "The Effective Suess Response of a Saturated
Clay Soil to Repealed Loading," Canadian Georec:hnical Journal, Vol 6, No. 3,
At1g., 1969, pp. 241-252.
16. Sanna, S. K., "Seismic Stability of Earth Dams and Embankments," Geotechniqut,
London, England, Vol. 25, No. 4, Dec., 1975, pp. 743-761.
17. Schnabel, P. B., and Seed, H. B., "Accelerations in Rock for Earthquakes in the
Western United States,'' &port No. EERC 72-2, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, Univcrsjty of California, Berkeley, Cal.if., July, 1972.
18. Seed. H. B., "A Method for "Eanhqualce-Resistant Design of Earth Dams," Journal
of the Soil Mechania and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 92, No. SMl, Proc.
Paper 4616, Jan., 1966, pp. 13-41.
19. Seed, H. B., "A Case Study of Seismic Instability and Te:rz.aghi Foresight,'' Tenaghi
Memorial Lecture Program, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey, Aug. 14-16, 1973.
20. Seed, H. B., and Chan, C. K., "Clay Strength Under Earthquake Loading Conditions,"
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Fowidations Di11ision, ASCE, Vol 92, No. SM2,
Proc. Paper 4723, Mar., 1966, pp. 53-78.
21. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., "Rock Motion Accelerog.cams for High Magnitude
Earthquakes.," Report No. EERC 67-7, Earthquake Engineering Resca.n:h Center,
University of California, Berkeley, Calif., Apr., 1969.
22. Seed, H. B., and Idriss, I. M., "Influence of Soil Conditions 011 Ground MotioDS
During Earthquucs," Journal of the Soil Mechanics and PoU11dations Division, ASCE,
VoL 95, No. SMl, Proc. Paper 6347, Jan., 1969, pp. 99-l37.
23. Seed, H. B., and Lee, K. L., ''Liquefaction ofs.turaled Sands During Cyclic Loading,"
Joiunal of the Soil Mech.anics and Foundations Division, ASCE, Vol 92, No. SM6,
Proc. Paper 4972., Nov~ 1966, pp. lOS-134.
24. Seed, H. B., Lee, K. L., and Idriss, I. M., "Analysis of the Sheffield Dam Failure,''
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division,. ASCE. VoL 95, No. SM6,
Proc. Paper 6906, Nov., 1969, pp. 1453-1490.
25. Seed, H. B., et al., "Analysis of the Slides ill the San Femando Dams during the
Earthquake of February 9, 1971," Report No. EERC 13-2, Earthquake Engineering
Rcsu.rch Center, University of California, Berkeley, Calif., June, 1973.
26. Seed, H. B., a.nd Marlin. G. R., "The Seismic Coefficient ill Earth Dam Design.,''
Jou.rnal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundalions Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SM3,
Proc. Paper 4824, May, 1966, pp. 25-S8.
27. Serff, N., et al., "Earthquake Induced Defonnations of Earth Dams," Report No.
EERC 764, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California,
Berkeley, Calif., SepL, 1.976.
28. Terzaghi, K., "Mechanisms of Landslides," The Geological Society of America,
Engineering Geology (Berkey) Volume, Nov., 19SO.
29. Tbiers, G. R., and Seed, H. B., "Strength and Stress-Strain Characteristics of Clays
Subjected to Seismic Loads,'' ASTM STP 450, Symposium on Vibration EffCCIS
of Earthquakes 011 Soils and Foundations, American Society for Testing and Materials,
1969, pp. 3-S6.
I~' :1 I
' ~
·1} f J I ! ,I
ij
11
~ i ~ I' ii ~ f, t
f
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.01 6.01
,,_
0 0 0
5.96
5.91
5.86
,...... 5.81
~ '-' ,,_
...:l
c:/) ~ 5.76
'-'
t:: 0 ·.g > 5.71
~ ~
5.66
5.61
5.56
5.51
0
White Mesa Mill Cell 5A
Section A-A'
Yield Acceleration Determination
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
West -Cell SA Pool Elevation
Cell Surface
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Horizontal Seismic Load Coefficient, Ky = 0.65
1.00 .-;-• • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • • • • • •
• • • •
• • • •
• •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • •
• • •
• • •
• • • • • •
• • •
• • • •
•
• • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • •
400
• • • • • • • • •
450
• • • • •
• • •
• • • • • • • • •
500
• • •
550
East -Cell 5B
600 650 700
Distance (feet) Attachment B 1 /3
5.96
5.91
5.86
5.81
5.76
I 5.1 1
5.66
5.61
5.56
5.51
750
,,_
0 0
0
.....-<
~ '-'
,,-.,
0 0 0 -~ --,,-., ~
r:/J.
6
i:: 0 .....
tti > V ....... ~
0 I 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
6.11 6.11
6.01
5.91
White Mesa Mill Cell SA
Section B-B'
Yield Acceleration Determination
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
Horizontal Seismic Load Coefficient, Ky= 0.66
6.01
5.91
,,-.,
0
0
5.81 5.81 ~
5.71
1.00 ~ • • • • • • --1 5.71 ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • North -Cell 4B Cell Surfac Pool Elevation : •:: •:: •:: •
5.61 • • • • • • • ,------------------------------...:L---"""":,'.-""",.,.,."ll"l'T"!!II..,:•~•:..:_. • • • • • • --1 5.61 ·1 • • • • • • • • • • • • •. -· • South -Cell SA
300 400
Distance (feet)
500 600
5.51
700 800
!Attachment B 2/3 I
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.00 6.00
,-...
0 0 0
5.95
5.90
5.85
.....-< 5.80
0
,-...
.-:l "!fl ~ 5.75
'-'
i:: 0 -~ > 5.70
(1)
~
5.65
5.60
5.55
White Mesa Mill Cell SB
Section C-C'
Yield Acceleration Determination
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
South
50 100 150
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 00 .......... r-• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• •
• • •
• •
• • •
• •
• • •
• •
• • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
200 250 300 350 400
Distance (feet)
Horizontal Seismic Load Coefficient, Ky= 0.51
5.95
5.90
5.85
5.80
5.75
I
-I 5.70
North -Cell SB --1 5.65
Pool Elevation
5.60
Tailings
!Its« !&!. r* ~ ~ :... iii 5.55
450 500 550 600 650 700
Attachment B 3/3
5.50
750
,-...
0 0 0
.....-<
X '-'
G
consulting
scl<':<l'IIISIS and
1a-r,g1nee1s
November 27, 2006
Mr. Harold R. Roberts
International Uranium (USA) Corporation
1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
Subject: White Mesa Uranium Facility
Cell 4 Seismic Study
Blanding, Utah
Dear Mr. Roberts:
MFG, Inc.
A TETRA TECH COMPANY
Fort Collins orflcc
3801 Automation Way, Suite 100
Fort Collins, CO 80525
970.223.9600
Fax: [phone]
MFG Project No. I 814I3x.102
This document has been prepared to examine the seismicity of the White Mesa site and to recommend a
design peak ground acceleration (PGA) to be incorporated in the Cell 4A design. This letter addresses
concerns brought forth in comments by Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) as documented
in Interrogatory IUC R313-24-4-05/05: Dike Integrity.
Comments in Interrogatory IUC R313-24-4-05/05
Comments from UDEQ state that the seismic loading used (0.10 g) for stability analysis of the Cell 4A slopes
is based on an outdated seismic analysis presented in the 1988 Cell 4 Design Report (UMETCO), and that
updated seismic hazard analysis should be performed. As stated in the Interrogatory 05, it is notthoughtthat
there is any new information on active faults that would impact the hazard at White Mesa. However, UDEQ
requested ground motion attenuation relationships be updated to reflect current evaluation methods.
Original Design Basis for Cell 4
This original design report for Cell 4 (UMETCO, 1988), characterized the geologic conditions at the site.
Section 1.3.4 identified potential earthquake hazards to the project. The specified hazards include minor
random earthquakes not associated with a known seismic structure, and an unnamed fault located 57 km north
of the project site (north of Monticello), with a fault length well defined for 3 km, and possibly as long as 11
km. The fault is considered a suspected Quaternary fault, but does not have strong evidence for Quaternary
movement. Estimates of the maximum credible earthquake (MCE) associated with this fault were estimated
to have a magnitude of 6.4 based on relationships developed by Slemmons in 1977. Ground motions at the
project site were estimated using attenuation curves established in 1982 by Seed and Idriss. Peak horizontal
accelerations at the site from the fault were estimated to be 0.07 g.
Mr. Harold R. Roberts
November 2 7, 2006
Page2
Updated attenuation relationships
A search of the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database (USGS 2006) lists Shay graben faults as a Class B
(suspected) Quaternary fault. No other faults within 50 km of the site are included in the database. Shay
graben faults were included in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) report. Other faults
considered as possible seismic sources include the unnamed fault north of Monticello that was the design
basis of the design accelerations in the 1988 report.
Many attenuation relationships have been developed within the last ten years and are currently being used to
estimate ground motions. Three relationships are used in this report to estimate the peak ground motion at the
White Mesa site. Abrahamson and Silva ( 1997) is a well accepted relationship used for shallow crustal
earthquakes in Western North America. In addition, Spudich et al. (1999) is used because it has been
specifically developed for extensional tectonic regimes, such as those encountered in the area of the site.
Campbell and Bozorgnia (2003), is also examined as a current, applicable model, which accounts for normal
faulting. In all cases, mean values plus one standard deviation are reported. A comparison of the three
methods can be found in Table 1.
Design Peak Ground Acceleration for Cell 4
The above discussion is based on the PGA associated with MCE predicted for a known tectonic feature, and
as such, cannot be correlated to a specific return period. IO CFR I 00 Appendix A and IO CFR 40 Appendix
A of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations are interpreted to apply to long-term, reclaimed
impoundments, A distinction should be made between seismic conditions that apply to operational conditions
versus long-term conditions. Disposal areas are required to demonstrate closure performance that provides
control of radiological hazards to be effective for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable,
and, in any case, for at least 200 years. However, this standard should not apply to the operational time-
period of the disposal cell. In 2002, the USGS updated the National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), which
show peak ground and spectral accelerations at 2 percent and l O percent probability of exceedance in 50
years. From these maps, the PGA for the White Mesa site is shown to be 0.090 g with a 2 percent probability
of exceedance in 50 years. The probability of exceedance can be represented by the following equation:
PE= 1-e-(n/T)
Where PE = probability of exceedance, n = time period, in years, and T = return period, in years.
It can be shown that the return period associated with a PGA of0.090 g is equivalent to 2,475 years, and if the
life of the project is conservatively taken to be 100 years, the probability of exceedance of 0.090 g is
approximately 4 percent. Therefore, the PGA taken from the USGS maps is an appropriate design
acceleration to use for operational conditions of the disposal cell.
Conclusions
The seismic loadin of 0.1 used in anal sis of the Cell 4A dikes exceeds the PGA associated with a 2
percent probability of exceedance within 50 years, and is appropriate for the operational life of the disposal
cell. At the time when design of closure is implemented, design PGA based on the MCE associated with
known or suspected Quaternary features and the background seismicity of the area should be incorporated
into the design long-tenn seismic loading.
P:111141 J,_ While Mesa\Seiamicl.etlcrRepor! Pinlll.doo
Mr. Harold R. Roberls
November 27, 2006
Page3
References
Abrahamson, N .A., and W .J. Silva ( 1997). Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow
crustal Earthquakes, Seismologcal Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. I, pp. 94-127, January/February.
Campbell, K.W., and Y. Bozorgnia (2003). Updated Near-Source Ground-Motion (Attenuation) Relations for
the Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectra,
Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93, No. I, pp. 314-33 t, February.
Spudich, P., W.B. Joyner, A.G. Lindh, D.M. Boore, B.M. Margaris, and J.B. Fletcher (1999). SEA99: A
Revised Ground Motion Prediction Relation for Use in Extensional Tectonic Regimes, Bulletin of the
Seismological Society of America, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1156-1170, October.
UMETCO, 1988. Cell 4 Design, Appendix A, White Mesa Project.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2002. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database: http://Ofaults.cr.usgs .. gov/,
If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Sincerely,
TETRA TECH COMPANY
MFG.INC.
tf?e'Jl,,(/J:.t -
Attachment(s)
Ath L, 3/A.
Table 1: Peak Ground Accelerations -White Mesa
PGAMean PGAMean
MCE(Wells PGAMean plus 1 SD plus 1 SD,
Fault Distance and plus 1 SD (Abrahamson Campbell-PGAMean
Length Fault Site from Coppersmith, (Spudicb et and Silva, Bozorgnia plus 1 SD
Name (km) Type1 Class2 site (km) 1994) al., 1999) 1997) 2003 averae:e
unnamed fault north of Monticello,
defmed lemrth 3.0 N R 57.4 5.49 0.034 0.027 0.037 0.032
unnamed fault north of Monticello,
nossible total lenirth 11.0 N R 57.4 6.23 0.050 0.059 0.055 0.055
unnamed fault north of Monticello,
1/2 total rupture 5.5 N R 57.4 5.84 0.041 0.039 0.044 0.041
Shay graben faults (Class B) 40.0 N R 44.6 6.97 0.096 0.116 0.113 0.108
Fault Type: N = Normal
2Site Class: R =Rock or shallow soils
~
r
~
+'
0.7 ,-----,----,r---r-----.,--_--,
~s,..,.. ~oi'fJ ~
-~? • .:! 0,6 "' fc,~'7 a o~ fi "-oo/ ffi 0,5 ~ ~7 •
J ,// ~ ~I • • ~ o,q -§<y
t:: ~/ ~ --#
t.) ~ ~ o.3 ~ I
n:: • ~ 1. I
~0.2 .. I I
f= J • I ~ , .. >
~ o., ii.a... I
•
a 1'89 LOM4 PRIETA EARTtlOuAKE
-
•
•
-
-
.
-o.. I I • ~ I • PREVIOUS EAR'l'HOUAKE'.S ~ .I I I o._ _ _.._ _ _... _____ _..__ _ __. __ ,....
0 0,1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
PEAi< TRANSVERSE 8ASE ACCELERATION ( g)
Source: Harder [1991]
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
FIGURE NO.
PEAK TRANSVERSE CREST ACCELERATION VERSUS t---------------
PEAK TRANSVERSE BASE ACCELERA T£0N PROJECT NO. ~',(' {)34-fil
DATE: AP r, \ 20U',
Geosyntec f>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project/
Client: EF Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB Proposal No.: SC0634
Task No. 02
Title of Computations SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS OF BERMS
Computations by: \ 2 / \. a I \ 2
Date
Title
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
Signature ~__.............----
Printed Name Keaton Botelho, P .E.
{peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Title
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date
SC0643.BermSettlement5A-5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
By Checked by
Date
I tz{ le/ /2-
Date
Approval
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page I of 8
Written by: R. Fll:nn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1ilri\1i..
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project No.: SC0634 Task 02
No.:
SETTLEMENT EVALUATION OF BERMS
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this calculation is to evaluate the differential settlement under the
loading from the berms at the perimeter of the cells to assess the potential effect on the
system.
SUMMARY OF DESIGN
Based on the assumptions and calculations presented herein, the differential settlement
of the berms will be approximately 0.20 inches at the toe of the slope and approximately
0.33 inches at the top of the slope, causing a strain of approximately 0.01 % of the liner,
when the cell is empty. When the cell is full, the differential settlement of the berms
will be approximately 2.89 inches at the toe of the slope and approximately 3.13 inches
at the top of the slope, causing a strain of approximately 0.002% of the liner.
ANALYSIS
Task 1: Evaluate the settlement of the berm in empty conditions.
Evaluate the settlement under the center of the berm versus at the toe of the berm.
Based on the proposed grading for Cells SA and SB (Attachment A), the following
cross-section can be evaluated for the highest berm of the two cells ( the south berm of
Cell SB).
Lin~er 1 2 ~ ~ ! 46' I
B
411 92' "' A
B~
SC0643.BennSettlement5A-5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec 0
consultants
Page 2 of 8
Written by: R. Flvnn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1z\\~j,z
Client: EF Project: Cells 5A and 5B Project No.: SC0634 Task 02
No.:
A unit weight of 13 7 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for the berm material was estimated
using data from a boring advanced in the existing berm between Cell 4A and 4B
(Attachment B):
P, load= yxH = (137 pcf)(46ft) = 6,302 psf
Assuming the foundation for the berm consists of formational soil consisting of silty
and clayey coarse to fine sandstone with layered shale (Attachment C), and based on the
dense nature of the soil and underlying sandstone, the conservative stress-strain
modulus is assumed to be as follows:
Es = 1500 MPa (Boyles, 5th Ed., Attachment D)
lb
145-2 144. 2 lk'
E =1500MPax in x m x lp =31320/csf
s 1 MP a lft2 1 OOOlb '
The settlement, S, is calculated in Table I using the elastic theory (Attachment E, 1/2).
Elastic Theory: /),. = p L
AEE
Where: I),. = deformation
P = force (F)
L = length 0f material coltu1m .(f)
A = area of material column (L J
EE= Modulus of Elasticity (F/L )
For this analysis, the Boussinesq case for influence under a triangular load will be used,
as presented in DM7. l-171. (Attachment E, 1/2). Translating the terms from Elastic
Theory to apply to the Boussinesq approach to settlement calculation, the following
equation is derived:
S = ( 41 x P)(!),.H) x (12 in) (Attachment E 2/2)
(A)(Es) 1 fl '
Where:
S =Settlement(!),. in Elastic Theory)
P = 6302 lb
SC0643.BennSettlementSA-58.20121213 .F.calc.docx
Written by:
Client: EF
To Find I:
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 3 of 8
R. Flvnn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: '1-\ 1~\1i.
Project: Cells 5A and 5B Project No.: SC0634
A=lft2
/J.H = incremental depth, ft (L in Elastic Theory)
Es = Soil Modulus, = EE in Elastic Theory
Task 02
No.:
I = Boussinesq zone of influence, obtained from Figure 7 on page
DM?.1-171 using m and n parameters (Attachment F, 1/2).
n=B/z
m=L/z
B = 92 ft, distance from outer edge of berm
L = 1,410 ft, length along berm edge
z = depth, ft
uz = 4I*P, ksf
(Attachment F)
(Attachment F)
Table 1. Settlement due to load under the embankment at the top of the slope, using
Figure 7, "Beneath Corner O" chart, (Point A):
z(ft) n=B/z m=l/z I 41 oz=4I*P (ksf) E. (ksf) AH (ft) S (in)
5 18.4 282.0 0.240 0.96 6.0 31,320 5 0.012
10 9.2 141.0 0.235 0.94 5.9 31,320 5 0.011
15 6.1 94.0 0.230 0.92 5.8 31,320 5 O.Oll
20 4.6 70.5 0.220 0.88 5.5 31,320 5 0.011
40 2.3 35.3 0.200 0.80 5.0 31,320 20 0.039
60 1.5 23.5 0.175 0.70 4.4 31,320 20 0.034
80 1.2 17.6 0.158 0.63 4.0 31,320 20 0.031
100 0.9 14.1 0.140 0.56 3.5 31,320 20 0.027
150 0.6 9.4 0.108 0.43 2.7 31,320 50 0.052
200 0.5 7.1 O.D75 0.30 1.9 31,320 50 0.036
250 0.4 5.6 0.046 0.18 1.2 31,320 50 0.022
300 0.3 4.7 0.042 0.17 1.1 31,320 50 0.020
350 0.3 4.0 0.028 0.11 0.7 31,320 50 0.014
400 0.2 3.5 0.028 0.11 0.7 31,320 50 0.014
I I Total S, in. i 0.333
Settlement under A (SA), the center of the berm, is approximately 0.33inches.
The calculation is repeated in Table 2 for settlement at the toe of the berm also using
Figure 7, but the influence chart used is "Beneath Corner Q" chart.
SC0643.BermSettlement5A-5B.2012l213.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 4 of 8
Written by: R. Fll'.nn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 12.li~\12--I
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project No.: SC0634 Task 02
No.:
Table 2. Settlement due to load at toe of the slope (Point B):
z(ft) n =B/z m=Uz I 41 crz=4I*P (kst) Es (ksf) MI (ft) S (in)
5 18.4 282.0 0.080 0.32 2.0 31,320 5 0.004
10 9.2 141.0 0.080 0.32 2.0 31,320 5 0.004
15 6.1 94.0 0.080 0.32 2.0 31,320 5 0.004
20 4.6 70.5 0.080 0.32 2.0 31,320 5 0.004
40 2.3 35.3 0.080 0.32 2.0 31,320 20 0.015
60 1.5 23.5 0.080 0.32 2.0 31,320 20 0.015
80 1.2 17.6 0.080 0.32 2.0 31,320 20 O.Dl5
100 0.9 14.1 0.077 0.31 1.9 31,320 20 O.Q15
150 0.6 9.4 0.061 0.24 1.5 31,320 50 0.029
200 0.5 7.1 0.053 0.21 1.3 31 ,320 50 0.026
250 0.4 5.6 0.042 0.17 1.1 31,320 50 0.020
300 0.3 4.7 0.041 0.16 1.0 31,320 50 0.020
350 0.3 4.0 0.029 0.12 0.7 31,320 50 0.014
400 0.2 3.5 0.028 0.11 0.7 31,320 50 0.014
Total S, in. '. 0.199
Settlement under point B (SB), the toe of the berm, is approximately 0.20 inches.
Evaluate the elastic strain of the side slope liner system related to settlement.
~S = 0.33-0.20 = 0.13 inches.
The liner is ~[(92ft)2 +(46.ft)2 ] =103/t in length.
Therefore, the strain in the liner is O. l3 in . = 0.01 %
103.ftx 12m
I.ft
Task 2: Evaluate the settlement under the berm upon filling of the Cell.
Upon filling the Cell, the foundation may show differential settlement between Point A
and Point B on the liner.
Liner
Tailings Berm
B
92'
SC0643.BennSettlement5A-5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
GeosyntecC>
Written by: R. Fll'.nn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by:
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project No.:
Assume the following conditions:
Berm Material:
Tailing Material:
Foundation Soil:
Length
Width
Load over Point A:
Load over Point B:
r=l31 psf
r=125psf
Es= 31,320 ksf
L=l,410ft
B = 1,000 ft
PA= 6,302 psfat a distance of 92 ft
Pa= (125 psj)(46ft) = 5,750 psf
consultants
Page s of 8
G. Corcoran Date: 1il1s\l2..
SC0634 Task 02
No.:
Calculations are performed using the equation defined in the previous section.
Calculations are shown in Table 3 use influence values obtained from Figure 3 on page
7.1-167 of DM 7.1 (Attachment F, 2/2) for infinitely long footing.
Table 3. Settlement due to load under the embankment (filled condition)
z (ft) 7/B I crz=I*P (ksf) Es (ksf) MI(ft) s (in)
5 0.01 1.00 6.30 31,320 5 0.012
IO 0.01 1.00 6.30 31.320 5 0.012
15 0.02 1.00 6.30 31,320 5 0.012
20 0.02 1.00 6.30 31,320 5 0.012
40 0.04 1.00 6.30 31,320 20 0.048
60 0.06 1.00 6.30 31,320 20 0.048
80 0.08 1.00 6.30 31,320 20 0.048
100 0.10 0.97 6.11 31,320 20 0.047
150 0.15 0.92 5.80 31,320 50 0.111
200 0.20 0.90 5.67 31,320 50 0.109
300 0.30 0.89 5.61 31,320 100 0.215
400 0.40 0.85 5.36 31,320 100 0.205
500 0.50 0.75 4.73 31,320 100 0.181
SC0643.BennSettlement5A-5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 6 of 8
Written by: R. Fl;rnn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: \t.\,i\ ,z..
Client: EF Project: Cells 5A and SB Project No.: SC0634 Task 02
No.:
az=I*P
z (ft) z/B I (ksf) Es(ksf) LiH (ft) s (in)
600 0.60 0.70 4.41 31,320 100 0.169
700 0.70 0.66 4.16 31,320 100 0.159
800 0.80 0.61 3.84 31,320 100 0.147
900 0.90 0.58 3.66 31,320 100 0.140
1000 1.00 0.53 3.34 31,320 100 0.128
1100 l.10 0.50 3.15 31,320 100 0.121
1200 1.20 0.49 3.09 31,320 100 0.118
13!)0 1.30 0.44 2.77 31.,320 100 0.106
1400 1.40 0.40 2.52 31,320 100 0.097
1500 1.50 0.39 2.46 31,320 100 0.094
1600 1.60 0.37 2.33 31 ,320 100 0.089
1700 1.70 0.35 2.21 31,320 100 0.085
1800 1.80 0.34 2.14 31 ,320 100 0.082
1900 1.90 0.32 2.02 31,320 100 0.077
2000 2.00 0.30 1.89 31,320 100 0.072
2100 2.10 0.29 1.83 31,320 100 0.070
2200 2 .20 0.28 1.76 31,320 100 0.068
2300 2.30 0.27 1.70 31,320 100 0.065
2400 2.40 0.26 1.64 31,320 100 0.063
2500 2.50 0.25 1.58 31 ,320 JOO 0.060
2600 2.60 0.24 1.51 31,320 100 0.058
Total 3.130
Settlement under A (SA), the center of the berm, is 3.13 inches.
For point B, assume uniform loading (aerial fill) and B = 1000 feet for infinitely long
footing, again using Figure 3 on page DM7.1-167 (Attachment D, 2/2). The calculation
of settlement for this condition is shown in Table 4.
T bl 4 S ttl a e e t d t 1 d d th t f th 1 ernen ue o oa un er e oe o es ope (fill d e d'tion) con 1
z(ft) z/B I crz=I*P (ks f) E, (ksf) LiH (ft) S (in)
5 0.01 1.00 5.75 31,320 5 O.Ql I
10 0.01 1.00 5.75 31,320 5 O.Oll
15 0.02 1.00 5.75 31,320 5 0.011
20 0.02 1.00 5.75 31,320 5 0.011
40 0.04 1.00 5.75 31,320 20 0.044
SC0643.BermSettlementSA-5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 7 of 8
Written by: R.Fl:i::nn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: EF Project: Cells 5A and 5B Project No.: SC0634
crz=I*P
z (ft) zJB I (ksf) Es (kst) ~H (ft) S (in)
60 0.06 1.00 5.75 31,320 20 0.044
80 0.08 1.00 5.75 31,320 20 0.044
100 0.10 0.98 5.64 31 ,320 20 0.043
150 0.15 0.95 5.46 31 ,320 50 0.105
200 0.20 0.92 5.29 31,320 50 0.101
300 0.30 0.90 5.18 31.320 100 0.198
400 0.40 0.83 4.77 31,320 100 0.183
500 0.50 0.75 4.31 31 320 100 0.165
600 0.60 0.71 4.08 31 ,320 100 0.156
700 0.70 0.69 3.97 31 320 100 0.152
800 0.80 0.61 3.51 31,320 100 0.134
900 0.90 0.60 3.45 31,320 100 0.132
1000 1.00 0.55 3.16 31 320 100 0.121
1100 1.10 0.52 2.99 31 ,320 100 0.115
1200 1.20 0.49 2.82 31 ,320 100 0.108
1300 1.30 0.46 2.65 31 ,320 100 0.101
1400 1.40 0.41 2.36 31 ,320 100 0.090
1500 1.50 0.39 2.24 31,320 100 0.086
1600 1.60 0.37 2.13 31,320 100 0.082
1700 1.70 0.35 2.01 31,320 100 0.077
1800 1.80 0.34 1.96 31,320 100 0.075
1900 1.90 0.32 1.84 31,320 100 0.070
2000 2.00 0.31 1.78 31,320 100 0.068
2100 2.10 0.29 1.67 31,320 100 0.064
2200 2.20 0.28 1.61 31,320 100 0.062
2300 2.30 0.27 1.55 31,320 100 0.059
2400 2.40 0.26 1.50 31,320 100 0.057
2500 2.50 0.25 1.44 31.320 100 0.055
2600 2.60 0.24 1.38 31,320 100 0.053
Total 2.891
Settlement under point B (Se), the toe of the berm, is 2.89 inches.
Evaluate for strain
L\S = 3.13-2.89 = 0.24 inches.
SC0643,BennSettlement5A-5B.20121213.F.ca1c.docx
Date: \tl10~ I l-
Task 02
No.:
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 8 of 8
Written by: R.Fl;rnn Date: 11/9/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1th« 12-
Client: EF Project: Cells SA and SB Project No.: SC0634 Task 02
No.:
The lineris ~[(92ft)2 + (46ft)2 ] = 103 ft in length.
Therefore, the strain in the liner is 0·24 i;2in = 0.002%
l03ftx-
lft
REFERENCES
Bowles, Joseph E., Foundation Analysis and Design, 5th Edition, Mc-Graw-Hill, 1996.
Holtz, Robert D. and Kovacs, William D., An Introduction to Geotechnical
Engineering, Prentice-Hall International, 1981.
Navy Design Manual DM-7 .1
PEEL Environmental Services, WMMW-16 Boring and Well Construction Log,
December, 1992.
SC0643.BermSettlementSA-5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
i ii i • . • I i l r _,
J
!
I I -1,,....,
' g
I ""
J•,o
!
J.·""" -
'':£• I ~5 IV/1/[U rl [,[,849 ·a'' I .. _.,J/'
' , I . ':
r-. \
\ .. ' . :-~--0 ~.--.. ~-· \-j·..-· r--,--:_·-w ·-"\. -
,,w
I I I I I I I fl I
/ I I
I
I i /
' I ~'/ ~~ • I
' ,,
,I I 1/, I ' 'I 1.
MATCHLINE (SEE SHEET 03A)
""
cnL <A \l'<ITEF EL 55~9B
Oft JGlrill8.IIA.:lO_OM n"'6.WNCIH.flli~Mtrcilf.~.,:1•xu,
---------I
-}'
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LE.GENO
_... JUNE Z011 EXISTING G,.OUNO I CELL 5A GRACINC ~ CONTOIJR (Hr) AN:~,, o:BTN3MelllOlc:EU...M.~ MltGICOWfQi.RO,
EXISTING DIRT ROAD
EXISTING FENCE
-~-PROPOSEOGRADIN0tMJORC~(10'}
PROPOSeO ~DING MINOR CON~ (2')
---PROf"O.SEDGRAD~GLIMIT
""""'""'""""-
------\,llliil!TO,UN(K
~ •:IDie APPROX11Mtf!TOP0fROCKCOOTOURl1'J(SEENOTES4~5l ~ SPLASH~@
STP12.03 EXPLORATORY TRl!.NCH LOCATION
SEISMIC UNElOCATIONS (SEE NOTE 4}
(8) CEll.48SOILBORINGS
NOTES
I EKIS~ SITI; FEAl\JRE AH:> PHOTOGRMIME.ffllC TOPOGAAl'tf.C CONTOURSSASEOI.J'ONASUR\IEYCONOUCTEDON~20.20t1
l')tfS INFORMATION WAS PROVIO'EO 6E EN!RGV FUELS RESOURCES (USA)INC
2 CONTRACTOR SHM.l SEGR£(;.ATE TOPSOIL SOIL AK)ROCI(
MA TERI~ ltn'O SEP ARA Te ST'OCKPl1.ES 1N STOO(Alf AREA AS
DIRECTED B't 'Tl-I!. CONSTRUCTION MANA.GER CONTRACTOR SHALL
NOTSTOCKPIL! OVER DELINEATEDARCHEOLOGIC.AL SITES
UNLESS OIRECTEO OlliEAWISE B'I' THE CONSTRUCTION t.1AN ... GEA
1 STOCKPllE TO ee COHSTRIJC1£0AT SLOPES NO STEEPER TH,\H
21-1:IV Nf/0 A M<l'IMUM OF 20 FT F!KIM TH: CR'EST Of THE SLOPE
STOCKPILE VvlTHIN 100 FT OF CREST OF SLOl"E SHALL NOT EXCEED
2bFTINHEICHf
4 S(ISMICU1''!:0ATAIS PAOVI0£01NSECTION02200U'THE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATICNS
5 APPROKIMATE TOF' OF ROCk CONTOURS WITH QUESTION MARKS REFER TO CONTOURS Tl-lA.T WERE ES™ATED
~ri?Y7Gfvi A (2-/z_)
l
' L
'""'Uf
Geosyntec1>
consuJtants
1tUl~~=WttZOQ t!F ,-, .. -
r><:--~...,,..-;,,_., "°"PIIO,fC'Tl'INOfll"" C~l ... i<:flONYr.Lel••,<t•O
CELL 58 PROPOSED GRADING
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND SB
\M-llTE MESA t.<ILL
BLANDING, UTAH ...... enc ... ~ .. MMC
Ccc-tlllf RO'
..,.,.(V,1£,... GTC
APPi!IOvE'OBV OTC
.... ~201:
~JtO IQilp.l ... $C08),l-0Jol..( --03B .,_B_
MATCHLINE (SEE SHEET03B)
t:[ll 4{!
V/4IU< [!. !;5EH:, ,, ;;
-t" c,.i
....,
, ..
""' ""' ~ ~l:Ge&;(OON_n'Jl.)l.• ... ~pftT~~·:'l~~m
J -,-
r:[U ,.,,
W~!(f, £!.. .~:,:l•J 11
---,.,,...."_., __
,_.......,...-' I
'1-1-,..--' ,..---....
,--..,_?
..-----' '
.......
. -..... r ~
~ ~
.i
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
J~E2011 EXIBT1NG GROUNOM,&.JORCONTOUR (10')
A.INE 2011 EXlSTliG GR()U,10 MINOR CONTOUR (7)
EXISTIMGOIRTR!V,D
EXISTING FENCE
-5'!)00-PROPOSED GRADING MAJORCONTOUR.(1D'l
PROPOSED GRADNG MINOR CONTOUR {2") _. .............
PROPOSED GRADE BREAK
-·----I-UTCFl,IY'.'a1,~
• • "'1C, ... • APPROXIMATE TOP OF ROQ( CONTOUR (1') (SEE NOTES4 ANC 5) ~ SPLASH?AD@
STP12C3 EXRORATORVTRENCHLOCAT!OH
SEISMIC LINE LOCATIONS (SEE NOTE 4)
@ CELL4BS01L00RINGS
N_OTES
I E.ICISTINC SITE FEATUM.NI> Pt40T()('.RM&ETRIC TOPOGRIJ'HIC
CONTOURS 8ASEO UPON A &VRVEY CONDUCTED ON..u.lE 29, 201 l
THIS INFORMATION '-""S PROVIDED BE ENERGY l"UELS RESOVRCES
(U6A)lf\C
2 CONTRACTOR 9!-l,IIU SEGREGATE TOPSOIL,SOII...-.JIOROCX
MA~ INTO SEPARATE STOCKPLES IN $TOCl<Pll£ARE,f, "5
OIRECTEO BY THE CONsmt/CnON w.N'-Gl!!FI; CONTRACTOR SHALL
NOT STOCKPILE OVER DfUNEATED "RCHEOI.0131CAL SITES UNL!:SS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER
l STOCKF>ILE TO BECONSTin.JCTEOATSL0PE$NO STEEPER THAf,l
2H.IV -"'°A MINWUMOf 20 FT FROM Tr£ CREST OF niE SLCl't! STOCMPILE \""lHIN IOOFTOFCRESTOFSL.OPESHAU.NOT!XcEEO 20FTIHI-IEIGl-!'T
4 SEISMIC LINE DA.TA IS PROVIDED IN SECTION 02200 OF lHE
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS
' APPROJ<IMATE TOP OF ROCI( CONTOURS WTH QUESllOH MNIKS
REFER TO CONTOVRS THAT WERE ESTMit,T!O
/+-rmcf1«1~ A Cl~
!
l
~~
c..,-,,.., -Geosyntecl>
consul1.a.n1s
'9al'IIWl,Qol0,1CM,11,1COm,.Wft ...
eF .._ __
~~:=
,... ___ lt_.O
-~-"'"" co,,,rou::TJON1-.;1sSP'•ro
-.-.. -
CELL 5A PROPOSED GRADING
CONSTRUCTfON OF CELLS SA AND SB
WHITE MESA MltL
BLANDrNG, UTAH
#J\ Jm.JAA'r' 20U
MMC 1--., .. iltvnc
"'
03A .,_g_
G
COl15Ulflng
sc1e n1isl5 and
eng1t·,ee rs
July 13, 2006
Tetra Tech EM, Inc,
950 17th Street, 22nd Floor
Denver, Colorado 80202
Attn:
Subject:
Ms. JoAnn Tischler
Draft
Soil Property Verification and
Slope Stability Analyses
Earthen Embankment between Cells 4A and 48,
IUC White Mesa Project
Blanding, Utah
MFG, Inc.
A rE mA TECH COMPANY
l·u , 1 Coll111'.> Oi 1·1Le
:mo I Au tori 1;1(10 11 'vV,1y, Suit" l CIO
rorl Collin<;, CO fi O'JJ'.,
910. :o :l .91',()0
1· il>: <)70.n.l. J I / I
MFG Project No. 181413x
Tetra Tech MFG prepared a technical memorandum dated June 7, 2006, and a letter dated June 9, 2006
describing slope stability analyses, assumptions, and recommendations for verification of soil properties
for an earthen embankment at the International Uranium (USA) Corporation, White Mesa Project near
Blanding, Utah.
On June 15, 2006, Tetra Tech drilled an exploratory boring in the embankment between Cell 4A and
Cell 4B at the approximate location shown on Figure I (attached). Descriptions of soils encountered in
the boring are shown on the Borehole log (also attached). The boring was drilled to a depth of 30 feet
and sampled at 5 foot intervals using a 2 inch diameter California sampler driven into the soil by a 140
pound weight dropped 30 inches (a Standard Penetration Test, SPT). Samples were examined by a
geotechnical engineer in our soils laboratory. Samples were selected and tested for moisture and density
and Atterberg Limits to determine their classification and similarity to properties identified in previous
geotechnical repo11s for the project. A triaxial test was performed to compare the angle of internal
friction and cohesion of the in-place soil with the values determined by the original designers in 1981.
The moisture and density of the samples tested are shown in Table 1 below:
!Attachment B (1/3)
White Mesa Stability Analyses-Draft
7/2/2008
Page 2
Table 1. Soil Properties
Depth Description Wet Density (pct) Dry Density (pct) Moisture content
(%)
JO Silty sand 136.5 125.0 9.2
20 Silty sand 140.5 126.3 I I .3
25 Silty sand 134.7 122.6 9.9
-Average 137.2 124.6 to.I
Atterberg limits tests indicate a liquid limit of 25, and a Plasticity Index of 13, with 50 percent silt and
clay sized particles (passing the number 200 sieve). Triaxial testing indicated an effective angle of
internal friction of 26.5 degrees and a drained cohesion of 957.5 psf.
These test results indicate although the samples were visually classified as silty sand, laboratory tests
indicate the embankment soils tested are a very sandy clay rather than sand and silty sand as repmted by
others and assumed in our initial analysis.
We performed additional slope stability analyses using the following soil properties: an average moist
unit weight of 13 7 pcf, an angle of internal friction of 26 degrees, and an effective cohesion of 900 psf.
We calculated the minimum factors of safety shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Revised Minimum Factors of Safety
Condition Calculated Minimum Factor of
Safety
Unlined alternative, static, steady state 2.45
Unlined Alternative, 0.1 g seismic 1.67
Lined Alternative, static 4.61
Lined Alternative, 0.1 g seismic 3.21
Therefore the factors of safety calculated and presented in our June 2 Technical Memorandum are
conservative. In fact, analyses using the measured soil properties indicate that the embankment exceeds
typical minimum acceptable safety factors even in the event leakage were to occur from the liner and
produce a saturated condition as shown in Figure 3 of our previous memorandum.
If you have any questions regarding our analysis, our previous correspondence, or this letter, please
contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
Tetratech MFG, Inc.
P:\PRJ\SDWP\Current Projects\SC0349 IUC White Mesa Mill\UDEQ Responses 48\Round I \MFG Soil
Report\so i I property veri fl cation. 07-07-06. tac. doc
[Attachment B (2/3)
White Mesa Stability Analyses-Draft
7/2/2008
Page 2
Thomas A. Chapel, CPG, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
2 copies sent
P:\PRJ\SDWP\Current Projects\SC0349 IUC White Mesa Mill\UDEQ Responses 4B\Round I\MFG Soil
Report\soil prope1ty verification.07-07-06.tac.doc
!Attachment B (3/3)
Envlronmenlal Services
Ar•ada, CO (1"3)4224116
sa Surface Elev.
Date: 12/07/92
Gamma (Nat)
Soll
...... Dakota Fm ......... .
Bore Hole No. :
WMMW-16
5588.18 = 91.5 UMETCO Mlnerals Corporation
F. A Peel
Sample Description
Sand: qu1rtt1•ddi•h brown,ftn1-Q111lned .....,_d,d dly.
Sands1on1: quartz, 11dd1h brown, very ftn• grained, oubround, BIiiy friebl• •
6andolono: ~11&112, lighl buN, wry lino, lo ftno11rain1d, aubanguar io MVJI•, friol>I,, good ,ntor gr awl• poroslly.
Sondltono: quw, igM bu" lo Dghl grey, vory 1n .. 1o ln•wli111d,JuocUrilc, muaiv1 lo lhln bead1d,tqh aou bidding~-pcwOllly.
Clay,1ono: Ughl grey, 1,1y, lllghny Hndy,lhln carbonecoou, plring1, hMI.
Comments Well
Costrucuon
Cement/Benta,.11
Graul
:!:J:t:,':~f•rtz, "11111 gray, •ory ftno gra!nod, 1ubrcundllcl, bdinli,; llin """ 4• idterlull 40 PVC
f:~::.'~:~ 1~~):J~~"!t~:Ji: mod um grained, 1ub-c,undod lo round I(. 9.1 E-4 cm'm
:.~~~; :~;. l'1,/Y,~:;";'m lo coarse gn,inod, holirltic, conglomoreic
Sondslont: qullrl,, llghl gray, fin•· lo modium-grllnod, 1utround 10 rounded,
Conglomorolo: B,ownt>h !lay, ai,gua, lo11b1nVJl1t, chwt 6 sarnlslont dub,
&ftslono: 17Hnl1h l'•Y,NndJ In porl, occa,lonol Iron 111inlng,
Sandslone: quortz, fighl greenish grey, v,ry fin• srlinod lilly.
Shale: grunlsh gray, lhi,.,edded IOI~ bontonllc.
~~:r:::iri:::r:~r::,;~!·.~~~r.?rin~~~1.:e,r~!~1:1.:i:b angular, tract
kndslont: ~\IIIU, lghl 1,r.,.n1,h gray, Jnt grolnod, Uvn aou bedding, ~ac• p«o1iry, bt<omtring g111~th groy , v1ry ho g,llinodlow11d base, ,1111,
po,11i,g llG4"
llond>IO!lt: q,.,artz, llilhl gray, griding downw1rd tom ••ry Ina grllnod lo mod'ftl grlfntd, 11A>~unded, r1yor1 vt11,ar1d, holinltlo, congomorlliclnporl, nee ~on ii.Iring.
Sond1ton1: quartz, lghl gray, medium graln1d, 1111bongu1t lo 11.bround, woi
eor11d, boinlfc, poor to food lnlarllfBnlW porvslly, ocwlonlll com, und
171fn1 end pobtit oonglomt<l1t 1lringora, 1r ... 1ron 1tlllnlng.
Shilt: dirk M lhlnbo<Jdtd, ,ctt.
K· 5.1E-5 cmlllC
Cantafi1er
Ko 7.IE·S cmluc
llenlonllt 6111!
10·20 Colorado SUic1S1nd
K• 2.BE,5 cm/8ec
(_ ¥/t\
;., ., .. !\, . : ·~ ;· ~ :•:.
GEOTECHNJCAL AND INDEX PROPERTIES: LABORATORY TESTING; SETTLEMENT AND STRENGTH CORRELATIONS 125
TABLE 2-8
Value range• for the static stress-strain
modulus Es for selected soils (see also
Tobie 5-6)
Field values depend on stress history, water
content, density, and age of deposit
Soil E,,MPa
Clay
Very soft 2-15
Soft 5-25
Medium 15-50
Hard 50-100
Sandy 25-250
Glacial till
Loose 10-150
Dense 150-720
Very dense 500-1440
Loess 15--QO
Sand
Silty 5-20
Loose 10-25
Dense 50-81
Sand and gravel
Loose 50-150
Dense ~ Shale
Silt
"Value range is too large to use an "average" value for design.
.--use, !~DO HPt\
in situ, it is reasonable for confined compression tests to produce better "elastic" parameters.
Although it is difficult to compare laboratory and field Es values, there is some evidence that
field values are often four to five times larger than laboratory values from the unconfined
compression test. For this reason, current practice tends to try to obtain "field" values from in
situ testing whenever possible. This topic will be taken up in more detail in the next chapter.
Table 2-8 gives a range of Es values that might be obtained. Note that the range is very
large, owing to the foregoing factors as well as those factors given on the table. With this
wide range of values the reader should not try to use "averaged" values from this table for
design.
If laboratory test plots similar to Fig. 2-43a are used, it is most common to use the initial
tangent modulus to compute the stress~strain modulus Es for the following reasons:
1~ Soil is elastic only near the.origin.
2. There is less divergence between all plots in this region. ,
3. The largest values are obtained-often three to five times larger than a tangent or ,secant
. modulus from another point along the curve.
Fouv1d atwn AVtu lys, s ~nd 'Dcft-qt11 , 15 1~1Ed . J l~w,
A~~cJn-v,cnt D C / ,")
1 and Conaolldallon se~ J .'•
&Jefinition
ndex (F.q. 8-8) ·,.
:q. 8-15); CE and c8 ares ':
1 index
tric modulus (F.q. 8-6)
lio
1oil layer (Eq. 8-3)
a soil layer (Eq. 8-3)
30)
~-8-23)
!q. 8-20) , .
dth to depth (Eqs. 8-28 ancf'
liangc (Eq. 8-6)
25)
34)
(Eq. 8-2)
I
I (Eq, 8-27) .I ,-! n load to a point (Eq.8-24) • ~
,t (Eq. 8-1)
settlement (Eq. 8-1)
(Eq. 8-1)
I)
re water pressure
I)
;(Eq. 8-22)
idation stress
:ess or maximum past
Eq. 8-2); p; and a~,,.
,urden stress (Eq. 8-2)
: (Eq. 8-22)
ENT
mple by a structure oi :
tal vertical deformatioQ·,
ement. The movement m
trd (called swelling) wiQ;f
. ·:/ eo,:npre11lbltlty ol Soll• 285 , .. ,··
.: " , · e in load. Temporary construction excavations and permanent
·c,.~ations such as highway cuts will cause a reduction in the stress, and
.~~;',!~Jµuig may result: As sho~ in Chapt~r 7, a loweri~g ?f the wa_1er ta~le ·;f~:~ also cause an increase m the ~ffecttve stresses w1thm the sod, which '*' ;~)ivill lead to settle~ents. _.~~other important aspe~t about settlements of
·;l"i.::-. ~~Jy fine-gr~ned sods 1s th~t they are of!en tt_me-dependent.
Y. ,. ·. . :In the design of foundations for engmeenng structures, we are
'.-~ · _'; ~·.twJerested in how much settlement will occur and how fast it will occur.
~ .,.-,;.'.~CC$8Ive settlement may cause st~uctural as well as other damage, espe-
i~,, :· ::cWiy if such settlement occurs rapidly. The total settlement, s,, of a loaded . .· t:·~soil has three components, or
', ·c·,, ·• •· s, c:: s1 + sc + S8 (8-1)
r. ~ ~ , ' < where s, = the immediate, or distortion, settlement,
:; :: ···-··: 1c = the consolidation (time-dependent) settlement, and
.S, = the secondary compression (also time-dependent).
The immediate, or distortion, settlement although not actually elastic
'-,~ usually estimated by using elastic theory. The equations for this compo-
• • 1• ~erit of settlement are in principle similar to the deformation of a column
i,..: · '-uod~r an axial load P, where the deformation is equal to PL/AE. Jn most
' ., ,fo~ndations, however, the loading is usually three dimensional, which , causes some distortion of the foundation soils. Problems arise concerning
the proper evaluation of a compression modulus and the volume of soil
·th!l.t is stressed. Jmmediate settlements must be considered in the design of
shallow foundations, and procedures for dealing with this problem can be
found in textbooks on foundation engineering.
The consolidation settlement is a time-dependent process that occurs
in saturated fine-grained soils which have a low coefficient of permeability.
The rate of settlement depends on the rate of pore water drainage.
Secondary c-0mpression, which is also time-dependent, occurs at constant
effective stress and with no subsequent changes in pore water pressure.
. Settlement computations are discussed in this chapter; the time rate of
consolidation and secondary compression are discussed in Chapter 9.
8.3 COMPRESSIBILITY OF SOILS
Assume for the time being that the deformations of our compressible
_soil layer will occur in only one dimension. An example of o~e-dimensional
compression would be the deformation caused by a fill covering a very
.l~ge area. Later on we shall discuss what happens when a structure of
finite size loads the soil and produces deformation.
I '
• I ,•. I!\
.r ii . ' I
350 ConaolldaUon and eonaolldallon Settlements
b. Find the vertical stress under the center of the footing at a depth
of 2 m.
c. Compare results with Fig. Ex. 8.17a.
Solution:
a. x = 3 m
y=4m
z = 2 m: therefore from Eqs. 8-28 and 8-29,
X 3 m =-; = 2 -1.5
y 4 n=-=-=2 z 2
From Fig. 8.21, find J = 0.223. From Eq. 8-30,
o, = q0 I
= 117 X 0.223
= 26 kPa
b. To compute the stress under the center; it is necessary tQ >'elf ,·;
the 3 X 4 m rectangular footing into four sections of 1.5 X 2 ni)n ·
Find the stress under one corner and multiply this value b 4 to tai
account the four qua ants o e uniformly loaded area. We can,\ o
because,
X = 1.5 ID
y=2m
z = 2 rn; then
m = ; = \5 ""' 0.75
y 2 n=-=-=1 z 2
The corresponding value of/ from Fig. 8.21 is 0.159. From Eq. f ..
o, = 4q0 I = 4 X 117 X 0.159 = 74,l<P~ ...
Thus the vertical stress under the center for this case is aB;oi'.W .:.
that under the comer. This seems reasonable since the cen~~::-"
from all sides but under the comer it is not. . 'f.\
c. At a depth of 2 rn below the 3 X 4 m footing, th~-llt. -~
according to the 2: 1 theory is 47 kPa (see Fig. Ex. ~s.11f.:ijt
represents the average stress beneath the footing at -2 lll:· 'l,l.1i
the comer and center stress by elastic theory is (26 + 74.Z) /14
8.
T
0
t
f
' I
'-J . -I -'-J -
):;._
'\ ~ "'" . ' 't::.:..
> ~
?'c\ z:.
~
---"---'
I•
·'-{Xi/
..:-
~ .. > u u • ,:. u :,
C -=
0.'.!5~ /.I' 0.'.!4
O.~J ,
O.::!::!
00 ~
-10,.. .... __.,c--7 .,,.,,.
0 08 s
0.21 -4 O.Q7
O.:'.O z J -~ o or, ... :,
0.19
O.IR t er,
2.S 1 o.os
-ii~ 0.04 2.0 ~
0.17 n =-Biz O.Olr-
0.16 tit~ L/t u-,1 0.02
O.IS a, "'l,Pa 0.01 --0.14 For square, m•n 0
0.1
0.13 Note: Numbers shown on -11 1.0
0.12 curves are n
0.11
0.10
0.8~1 0.09
0.7
0.09 0.6
0.08 o.s 0.07 u :,
:i
0,06 > u '-' o.os C .. :,
0.04 C: -= ~s11
.I--
L
10·
0.01~
0 I j I J I t I I t I
0.1 . I :Z:
BENEATH CORNER O , m
FIGURE 7
I"
II= HI:
"'= l/:
cr:=l,r•o
Values ,,r II shuwn 1111 ,,1n-n
For squ~rc, 111=11
1.0
m
Values of 11 shown on curves
-·-=~-----'-0
---10 . -
1.0
m
BENEATH CORNER Q
Influence Value for Vertical Stress Beneath Triangular Load
(Boussinesq Case)
10
10
41 •• II • lll I Ill,·
• • !I ..
~ ~ ,~ "" ~ ~ "I I \ "'ii. -~.,, .. '4,.,4 , ...
~ "i ~ ~} ... -o ,, I 0' ' " --ti
~ 01 ~ o· I '\ ~.IP~ I I ' II
~ j
_ /_ . J --\. J ~ ' -·
J I -41
I -\
\ . ..
\ ~ ! . I ~ ~ .. _,,, •4 .• IP -••
\.
\ "' "-
\ "I"' 4 .c -.. IP ...... -
Tl
II
\ --•• I\. ... I "-
~ IOI
-..... 0 01 J' •• '
j
ill II II I b
a. INFINITELY LONt FOOTINJ
SQUARE FOOT1NG
GIVEN
FOOTING SIZE = 2o'x 20'
UNIT PRESSURE P=2TSF
FIND
PROFILE OF STRESS INCREASE
BENEATH CENTER OF FOOTING
DUE TO APPLIED LOAD
-
I I
.. -,.. ... __ .. -"·~-:
~~~-· ·,:;;_ .· .... "-· ····-1\-"~ .. :.'" ~, ·_· . .-;;. '.
~o.r,~ .i·i· :" .. ,,__ o.ot ~ ' ( .. .,. . -"".:
11·i
41
' .-._,, 17 ' \ -I
~ o.bc!v j ' I/ 1 I
I [Ji
II ~ ~o.oa1&!""" J
1
•• I/
l/
Tl "'""-"'ftJ "'' 1_..w"" ' 7
•• )
... "
L....-II"'
... 7 ..
IOI
..... •O.OOIP.""
Ill
0 I U II 41
b. IQUAIIE ,ooTIN~
B =201 P = 2 TSF , '
z Z , cr1 (FT) ·a ! TSF . -· ;
10 0.5 0.70 X 2 = 1.4
20 I 0.38X 2 = 0.76
30 1.5 0.19 X2 = 0.38
40 2.0 0.12X2 = 0.24
50 2.5 0-:::2] X 2 -0.14 -'
60 3.0 0.05 X2 = 0.10
FIGURE 3
Stress Contours and Their Application
7.1-167
/
1 ·;· .. :.
.,.~-•. • I I
ll, _,
Geosyntec C>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Energy
Client: Fuels Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells SA and SB
Title of Computations
Computations by: Signature
Printed Name
Title Senior Staff Engineer
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked ----.....,£~~.:..r..""""~c:;._---'--=:__---
by:
(peer reviewer) Title Associate Engineer
Computations
Checked by:
Signoture ,~•
Printed NruncStevenM.Fitzwilliam, P.E.
Title Ass ci Engineer
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date
SC0634.Stability5A.20121 l 14.doc
By Checked by
Project/
Proposal No.:
Task No.
SC0634
02
J ;L) I fb/ I :1. r • Date
Date ~ •
J;I /1 '?>)1:i..
Date 1
'
Date
Approval
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Page 2 of 7
Written by: J. Griffin Date: 11/28/12 Reviewed by: S. Fitzwilliam Date: JZ-/t&/IZ
Task 02 Client: Energy
Fuels
OBJECTIVE
Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0634
Cell 5A and 5B Proposal No.:
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
CELLS SA AND SB
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
No.:
This calculation includes slope stability analyses for the final earthen berms associated
with construction of Cells 5A and 5B at the White Mesa Mill facility located in Blanding,
Utah. The purpose of the stability analyses is to evaluate final slope stability and
operational conditions required to maintain a minimum factor of safety of approximately
1.5 for final berm slope conditions, 1.3 for interim and temporary slope conditions, and
1.1 for seismically-loaded slope conditions based on the proposed design of the cell and
its liner system.
METHODOLOGY
Two-dimensional slope stability analyses were performed using the computer program
SLOPE/W 2004 (Version 6.22) developed by Geo-Slope International Ltd. (2004). The
results of the slope stability analyses are based on the Morgenstern-Price method that
satisfies both moment and force equilibrium. The analyzed slopes were kinematically
modeled using either circular or linear/circular sliding surfaces.
For each condition analyzed, the program searched for the critical sliding surface that
produces the lowest factor of safety using the grid and radius method available in
SLOPE/W. Factors of safety are defined as the ratio of the shear forces/moments
resisting movement along a sliding surface to the forces/moments driving the instability.
To model the various stability conditions encountered in Cells 5A and 5B before and
after filling, three cross-sections were selected for analysis and are shown in Figure 1.
The first cross section, Section A-A', is a west-east cross section that models Cell 5A
filled with tailings and Cell 5B empty. The section spans Cells 5A and 5B, with berm
slopes inclined at approximately 2: 1 (Horizontal:Vertical) and a base grade sloping
toward the berm at approximately 1 percent. The second cross section, Section B-B', is a
north-south cross section that models Cell 5A before filling and spans the berm
separating the southern portion of existing Cell 4B and Cell 5A. Section B-B' was
SC0634.Stability5A.20121114.doc
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 3 of 7
Written by: J, Griffin Date: 11/28/12 Reviewed by: S. Fitzwilliam Date: JJ..L/Y//Z.. .
Client: Energy Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Fuels Cell 5A and SB Proposal No.: No.:
modeled with Cell 4B full of tailings and Cell 5A empty. Both sections were modeled
without a liner on the empty cell in order to evaluate berm stability. The third cross
section, Section C-C' is a north-south cross section that spans the embankment on the
south side of Cell 5A. Section C-C' is modeled with Cell 5A filled with tailings. The
embankment back slope is inclined at 3: 1.
Sections A-A', B-B', and C-C' were modeled for four conditions. These four conditions
included static analyses, pseudo-static evaluation of the seismic loading conditions,
interim construction loading, and evaluation of the yield acceleration.
Pseudo-static evaluations for slope stability were performed for a seismic acceleration of
O.lg in accordance with the Cell 4 Design Report (UMETCO, 1988) as referenced by
MFG, Inc. in a letter to International Uranium Corporation (presently Energy Fuels)
dated 27 November 2006.
Interim loading was considered for the four cross sections from construction and
maintenance vehicle traffic on the access roads and haul roads on top of the embankment
berms. AASHTO H 20 loading was assumed for the interim construction and
maintenance vehicle loading (Attachment A). Two 16-kip loads were applied 6-feet
apart to model a vehicle traveling along the top of the berm. The first load was applied 2-
feet from the top of the slope.
Cells 5A and 5B will be constructed with the following liner system on the bottom area
(from top to bottom):
• Slimes Drain System;
• 60 mil smooth HOPE geomembrane;
• 300 mil geonet
• 60 mil smooth HDPE geomembrane;
• 60 mil HDPE Drain Liner™; and
• Prepared Subgrade.
Cells 5A and 5B will be constructed with the following liner system on the side slope
areas (from top to bottom):
• 60 mil smooth HDPE geomembrane;
SC0634.Stability5A.20121 l 14.doc
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Page 4 of 7
Written by: J, Griffin Date: ll/28/12 Reviewed by: S. Fitzwilliam Date: 12-.Jlf lf2-•
Client: Energy Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Fuels Cell SA and SB Proposal No.: No.:
• 60 mil HDPE Drain Liner™;
• 60 mil HDPE Drain Liner™; and
• Prepared Subgrade.
During operations, tailings/waste deposits are expected to be pumped into the cells below
the water surface where the tailings will settle out creating a gradual build-up of solids
along the base of the cell. Generally, the tailings will be pumped into the cells from north
to south, beginning at splash pads located along the northern slopes of the cells. We have
assumed that the tailings will extend up to the top of the berm. In the modeling, the
phreatic surface (water surface) is assumed to apply to only the waste and liner materials,
since the composite liner system minimizes infiltration of liquids into the underlying
subgrade/foundation. The phreatic surface is set at elevation 5585, which is three feet
below the top of the south berm. Groundwater at the site is reportedly greater than 50
feet below the ground surface.
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Based on existing operations at the site, tailings/waste deposits are anticipated to be
primarily fine sands with silt and some clay (Attachment B). We have estimated a total
unit weight of 125 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for this material based on Table 6 from the
Naval Design Manual for Soil Mechanics DM7-01, (Attachment C). The value selected
is based on the minimum wet weight (under loose placement to simulate the tailings
settling underwater) for a similar type of material. Based on Figure 3.7 (Attachment D)
for a 0% relative density silty sand, a friction angle of 26 degrees could be expected. We
have conservatively estimated a friction angle of 25 degrees, with no cohesion, for these
materials.
Laboratory interface friction testing for the proposed liner system resulted in a friction
angle of 11 degrees for the base liner (smooth geomembrane to geonet) and 15 degrees
for the side slope liner (Drain Liner™ to smooth geomembrane) (Attachment G). A unit
weight of 90 pcf and a cohesion of O are used with the friction angles of 15 and 11
degrees to model the liner system.
Geosyntec reviewed previous geotechnical investigations for the site performed by
others, including a memorandum from MFG, Inc. (MFG) dated 13 June 2006 and a
follow-up letter dated 7 July 2006 (Attachments E and F). MFGs follow-up letter
SC0634.Stability5A.2012l l 14.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 5 of 7
Written by: J. Griffin Date: 11/28/12 Reviewed by: S. Fitzwilliam Date: /i../!tL12.
Client: Energy Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Fuels Cell SA and 5B Proposal No.: No.:
described their geotechnical investigation at the site, which included an exploratory
boring through the existing berm between Cell 4A and 4B and a triaxial compression test
on the recovered soil samples. Based on material parameters selected for the design of
Cell 4B (Geosyntec, 2009), our field investigation for the design of Cells 5A and 5B, and
our review of previous geotechnical investigations, we have selected material properties
for the fill material in the berm that are consistent with the properties used previous slope
stability analyses (unit weight= 137 pcf, friction angle = 26°, cohesion= 900 psf). As
the embankment fill material will be derived from on-site soil, similar to the embankment
between Cell 4A and 4B, the same berm material properties were used for the
embankment fills associated with Cells 5A and SB.
The foundation material (Dakota Sandstone) is modeled as bedrock within the SLOPE/W
(i.e., impenetrable) to force slip surfaces to occur within the earth fill portion of the
berms.
The following table summarizes the material parameters used for slope stability analysis.
These parameters are generally consistent with the parameters used in slope stability
analysis for the design of Cell 4B.
Tailings 125
Liner 90 15 (side) 11 (base)
Benn 137 26 900
Dakota Sandstone Impenetrable Bedrock
SLOPE STABILITY RESULTS/RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed above, four cross-sections were analyzed which represent critical conditions
for Cells SA and SB.
Numerous potential failure surfaces were performed to evaluate various slip surface
geometries and to identify the critical slip surface for each cross-section and conditions.
The results of the slope stability analyses for Cross Sections A-A', B-B', and C-C' are
presented in Table 1. Table I also presents the results of interim stability analysis for
SC0634.Stability5A.20121114.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 6 of 7
Written by: J. Griffin Date: 11/28/12 Reviewed by: S. Fitzwilliam Date: /J.-f!,/J2-
Client: Energy Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Fuels Cell 5A and 5B Proposal No.: No.:
The slope stability analysis results are presented as Figures 2 through 14. Slope stability
analysis for interim loading conditions from construction and maintenance vehicles was
evaluated for deep-seated failure surfaces. Temporary wheel loading at the top of the
embankment may results in surficial failures; however this condition is considered a
maintenance issue and not a global stability concern.
For the cross sections evaluated to assess the yield acceleration of the slope, the critical
failure surface tends to recede from the slope face with respect to the static analyses for
the cross section. For these conditions the computer program was allowed to search for
the critical failure surface with the lowest factor of safety provided that the base of the
failure surface remained within the berm. If allowed to search for the critical failure
surface with the absolute lowest factor of safety for the cross sections analyzed, the
critical failure surface would extend down onto the liner of the adjacent cell. As this is
not a kinematically feasible condition for the cross sections analyzed in these analyses,
the base of the critical failure surface was fixed to remain within the berm to evaluate the
yield acceleration of the slopes.
These results indicate the minimum factors of safety are met during and after filling
operations for Cells SA and SB. We recommend that operations at the site limit the
tailings/waste deposits slopes to inclinations of 7: 1 or flatter.
SC0634.Stability5A.20121 J l4.doc
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Page 7 of 7
Written by: J. Griffin Date: 11/28/12 Reviewed by: S. Fitzwilliam Date: /1,./j,}li.
Client: Energy Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Fuels Cell 5A and 5B Proposal No.: No.:
REFERENCES
GeoSlope International, LTD (2004) SLOPE/W Version 6.17.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2009. "Round 1 -Interrogatory Response for the Cell 4B Design
Report, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah," dated January 2009.
MFG, Inc. 2006. "Technical Memorandum: White Mesa Stability Analysis," dated 7 June
2006.
MFG, Inc. 2006. "Draft, Soil Property Verification and Slope Stability Analyses, Earthen
Embankment between Cells 4A and 4B, IUC White Mesa Project, Blanding, Utah,"
dated 13 July 2006.
MFG, Inc. 2006. "White Mesa Uranium Facility, Cell 4 Seismic Study, Blanding, Utah,"
dated 27 November 2006.
SC0634.Stability5A.20121114.doc
Cross Section
A-A'
8-8'
C-C'
Tailings Slope
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSES
Energy Fuels -White Mesa Mill, Cells SA & 58
Blanding, Utah
Yield
Loading Condition Cell Condition Acceleration
Static --
Seismic Loading (0.1 g) Cell 5A filled with --tailings; Cell 58
Construction Loading empty --
Yield Acceleration 0.65
Static --
Seismic Loading (0.1g) Cell 48 filled with --tailings; Cell 5A Construction Loading empty --
Yield Acceleration 0.66
Static --
Seismic Loading (0.1 g) Cell 58 filled with --
Construction Loading tailings --
Yield Acceleration 0.51
Cell 48 filled with
Interim Tailings Slope tailings; Cell 5A --
partially full
Minimum Factor Calculated
of Safety Factor of Safety
1.5 3.2
1.3 2.6
1.1 2.0
1.0 1.0
1.5 3.2
1.3 2.6
1.1 2.1
1.0 1.0
1.5 3.4
1.3 2.5
1.1 2.8
1.0 1.0
1.3 1.3
Geosyntec t>
consultants
~
' f j --I V. I § ! .I I ( ··'/
: ~
I i ~ I
~ -_/ \/ i ,•;,.. , f ·' ) ' ) • " ' I : . I I
/ I"-I ' ,, .1
/ I
I 1·· -, . I ~ -. l ,.
{ I/\ !+ ,.~, ', /
WAtrR Cl. 5584,9
i·r
... r.,{f'.
(~Ji.
/t. ,,. .,-
~J.J I I
-"'.;, .. \ : ' . ·:r~,
' ·1 /-I I ~·
I
I
' _,,.n •;;..
I .• ,
I
'CELL 4A BORING
.-' .~
-.-,) \
.••
!"·,. ... ) .•• \ \
WAT(R a 5~98
'v ,,,, l':;;(1 -,,. ,, r .. /
h1q~R~ 1
I
,
/
( ' /
/
-;
/ (
' \ \
'"'
PRELIMINARY DESIGN DRAWINGS
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
JUNE :>011 E)t1SlNG GROUND ',j,\J()R CONT0UR(l01
JUNE 2011 EXISlll'«. GRO\.NJ MNOfi CONTOUR £21
EXt5TING OtRrRO,,\O
--·--PFlOPOSE"DGAAQINGMA.JORCONTOUll(10)
--•--~~-clRCCWl~U1
S 1 AS,BUILT TRENCH LOCATION
AS.8UILTSEISMICLIN1';S
PREUMINARY VOLUME REPORT
JUN(: .>011 EXl!iTING SURFACE VS Rf.\/lSEO CELL 5,\ PROPOSED GRACING
CUT •1.2'28,929 CUllC Y,l,ROS
At L = 1!H!,Jll CUBIC YARDS
NET= 1.G.l2 G06 CUBIC Y/\RDS ~on"
JUNE 2011 EXISTING SURFACE vs RCc.VISED C:Ell se PROPDSrn GRAOINC
CUT"" 704,IOOCUOICV"'RDS
rLL•~ew;c.-A.fCQ!I
Nl!':T • <ffl3,S32 CUSIC VAROS <CVT>
~
k,III.C,1'rllP:l"f
GeosyntecD
am,ultan~
ENERGY REI.$ INC.
111o'17!~HCl100tRPIMDCl~0,9UT~100 =~~~~ ..... ~·"°"""'* 'A'P'l-~Vf•..-.11 .. oc. ...... ,-
CELL 5A AND 58 PROPOSED GRADING
CELL SA AND 58 PRELIMINARY CELL DESIGN
T>all~WIM]MAYIOOT!ICIIIILll'O r ... A<D.l!«rrt--.a~ roi;,:mcrow ~nS<ll'•U."D
WHllc MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
OCOIE • .,.
-..
~ __ 1_~_2_
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.01 6.01
White Mesa Mill Cell SA
5.96 ~ Section A-A' -I 5.96
Static Loading
5.91 Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price -I 5.91
5.86 , 5.86
,-.,
0 0 0 ,...... 5.81 5.81
~ '-' ,-., ,-., 0 ~ 0
~ 5.76 0
,r/111111 •, •
5.76 ,......
'-' ~
~ '-'
0 .....
I ''T • 11m11, '...: 1 • ./91 • • • -I 5.71
• • •
5.66 • • • ,111111111~ !. i' • / ,,-/. -I 5.66
• • West -Cell SA • • • Pool Elevation • • 5.61 I-Cell Surface'-. / .,,,,~. -I 5.61
• • • East -Cell SB Tailings ~----~u~
5.56 I-4-----:~ -I 5.56
5.51 ......... 5.51
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Distance (feet) FIGURE 2
,-..,
0 0 0 -X '--' ,-.., ~ CZl ~ '--'
i:::: 0 ·-1i:i > (1) -~
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.01 6.01
5.96
5.91
5.86
5.81
5.76
5.71
5.66
5.61
5.56
5.51
0
White Mesa Mill Cell SA
Section A-A'
Seismic Loading (O. lg)
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
West -Cell SA Pool Elevation
Cell Surface
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Distance (feet)
5.96
5.91
5.86
5.81
5.76
5.71
5.66
5.61
East -Cell SB
5.56
-, ==, 5.51
450 500 550 600 650 700 750
FIGURE3
,-..,
0 0
0 -X '--'
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
6.01
White Mesa Mill Cell 5A
5.96 f-Section A-A'
Construction Loading
5.91 f--Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
5.86 f-
,-,
0 0 0 ,...... 5.81 f--
><: i 57+
i:: 0 ..... ~ 5.71 f--
<l) ....... ~
5.66 ~ •:\·.~ I'/; ~-.
iJ 7J . ~·~-ii£!-.
West -Cell SA 16 _kips
Pool Elevation
5.61 f-Cell Surface
5.56 I-Tailings
5.51
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Distance (feet)
600 650 700
East -Cell 5B
600 650 700
FIGURE 4
750
6.01
-J 5.96
J 5.91
5.86
-j 5.81
+76 !
-j 5.71
~ 5.66
-j 5.61
-j .5.56
5.51
750
0 50 I 00 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.01 6.01
--0
0 0
5.96
5.91
5.86
,..... 5.81
0
3 r:/). ::S 5.76
-.__,,
e 0 -~ > 5.71
Q) -~
5.66
5.61
5.56
5.51
0
White Mesa Mill Cell 5A
Section A-A'
Yield Acceleration Determination
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
West -Cell SA Pool Elevation
Cell Surface
50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Horizontal Seismic Load Coefficient, Ky = 0.65
1.00 ~ • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • •
• • • • • • • •
• • •
• • •
• •
• • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
• • •
• • •
• • •
• • • • •
• • • • • • • •
400
• •
• • • • • • •
• • •
450
•
• • • • •
• • • • • • • • • • • •
• • • • • • • • •
500
• • •
550
East -Cell 5B
600 650 700
Distance (feet) FIGURES
5.96
5.91
5.86
5.81
5.76
5.71 I
~ 5.66
5.61
5.56
5.51
750
--0 0 0 .....
~ -.__,,
,-._
0 0 0 -><:
0 l 00 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
6.11 6.11
6.01
5.91 I-
White Mesa Mill Cell SA
Section B-B'
Static Loading
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
6.01
~ 5.91
i 581 ~
i::::
+81
0 ..... ~ ;>
Q) -~
5.71 I-,!/.[/•/. -••• --j 5.71
5.61
North -Cell 4B • 5.61
South -Cell SA
5.51 ;----., -== 'II 'h--:d '--~-d'~ -===-c:m1 ,L .---< il 5.51
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Distance (feet) FIGURE6
,-._
0 0 0 -><: --
,,-..._
0 0 0 ,........
X '-_,/
,,-..._
...:l 00 6
~ 0 ..... ~ > 11) ,.......,
~
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
6.11 t 6.11
6.01
5.91
5.81
5.71
5.61
5.51
0
White Mesa Mill Cell 5A
Section B-B'
Seismic Loading (O. lg)
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
North -Cell 4B Cell Surfac
100 200 300
6.01
5.91
• I
• • / • I • • , 5.81
• • • r •
• • ~· .
' • / . . / I 5.71
•
•
• Pool Elevation• •
5.61
South -Cell 5A
ljCl!III m 7 zM t;,,-'a..,,, I n11r he---it: :' H -.,, ;,, I • .le-"':I 5.51
400 500 600 700 800
Distance (feet) FIGURE 7
,,-..._
0 0 0 ,........
X '-_,/
,-...._
0 0 0 .....
X
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
6.11 6.11
6.01
5.91 r
White Mesa Mill Cell SA
Section B-B'
Construction Loading
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
6.01
-j 5.91
i 5.81 ~
i::::
+81
0 ·-trj > Q) -~
5.71 f-
North -Cell 4B Cell Surfac
5.61
5.51
0 100 200 300 400
Distance (feet)
.:flf$;t.:·~·
•
500 600
1 5.71
5.61
South -Cell SA
-.... ., 5.51
700 800
FIGURE 8
,-...._
0 0
0 ......
X "-"'
-0 0 0 -~ ---....:l
00
6
i:: 0 ·-~ > V ...... ~
1( 10 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 200 300 400
6.11 6.11
6.01
5.91
White Mesa Mill Cell 5A
Section B-B'
Yield Acceleration Determination
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
Horizontal Seismic Load Coefficient, Ky = 0.66
6.01
5.91
-0 0
5.81 5.81 :2
5.71
1.00 .--;:-•••••• ••••••••• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • North -Cell 4B Cell Surfac Pool Elevation : •:: •:: •:: •
5.61 • • • • • • •
'r--------------------------------S.-----:,L-.mTT'lm"!:11.,.:•~·~ • • • • • • • • • • • •
5.51
0 100 200 300 400
Distance (feet)
500
• • • • • • • • • • • •
600
c
5.71
5.61
South -Cell 5A
5.51
700 800
FIGURE 9
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
6.00
White Mesa Mill Cell 5B
5.95 f-Section C-C'
Static Loading
5.90 f-Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
5.85
-..
0 0 0 -5.80
X '-" -.. ....:l r:/1 5.75 6
0 0 ..... ~ > 5.70
(1) ,........
~
5.65 ~ South
5.60
5.55
5.50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
350 400
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
350 400
Distance (feet)
450 500
450 500
550 600 650 700 750
6.00
--1 5.95
-1 5.90
5.85
5.80
5.75
5.70
North -Cell SB --1 5.65
Pool Elevation
Cell Surface
~
Tailin~s
550 600 650 700
FIGURE 10
5.60
5.55
5.50
750
-.. 0 0 0 -X '-"
0
6.00
5.95 f-
5.90 I-
5.85
---0 0 0 -5.80
><! '-' ---~ rJJ. 5.75 ~ '-'
i::: 0 ..... ~ 5.70 ;;>
V -~
5.65 ~
5.60
5.55
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.00
White Mesa Mill Cell 5B
Section C-C' -l 5.95
Seismic Loading (O. lg)
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price -l 5.90
•
• • • ·~ I ,. --1 5.85
• • l-J
South
50 100 150
• • •o-
• • • u, • \ . • • • • •j I ,.,. 11 '--, 5.80
. ·\.·.".°I\. ·r~ll tu lr I 8
200 250 300
0 5.75 ....,
><! '-'
5.70
North -Cell SB --1 5.65
Pool Elevation
Cell Surface
5.60
3 ·• ... = _. r--, .~. _ !J ~-~•'--'·-,,___ . f .. !;¢ •. ,_ -.--. •• .SJ 5.55
'P] -7 ' • I d1 ~ tt/· «-• 1 'I ,-111 --,..,, I • .,,, 5.50
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
Distance (feet) FIGURE 11
0
6.00
5.95 I-
5.90 I-
5.85
---0
0
S 5.80
><! .._, ---~
r:JJ. 5.75 6
§ .....
~ 5.70 ~ ~
5.65
5.60
5.55
5.50
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
White Mesa Mill Cell 5B
Section C-C'
Construction Loading
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
• • • •
•
•
South
• • • • • •
50 100 150 200 250 300
350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.00
-l 5.95
-l 5.90
5.85
5.80
•
•
• 5.75
• • • • • • 5.70
' • • • • • • • • • • • • North -Cell SB-1 5.65
• • 16 kips Pool Elevation
Cell Surface
\ 5.60
Tailings
C.·• .=. -1.litc:~ ' ,W _ __ _sa . ,...,~ ::q 5.55
350 400 450 500 550
Distance (feet)
600 650 700
FIGURE 12
5.50
750
---0 0 0 ,.......,
><! .._,
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750
6.00 6.00
5.95
5.90
5.85 -0 0
S 5.80
0 -~ ~ 5.75
'-'
i:: 0 ·-g 5.70 ~ ~
5.65
5.60
White Mesa Mill Cell 5B
Section C-C'
Yield Acceleration Determination
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
South
50 100 150
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • l 00 . . . . . . . . . . .-,.-• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
200 250 300 350 400
Distance (feet)
450
Horizontal Seismic Load Coefficient, Ky= 0.51
5.95
5.90
5.85
5.80
5.75
'
-l 5.70
North -Cell 5B ~ 5.65
Pool Elevation
Tailings
500 550 600 650 700
FIGURE 13
5.60
5.55
5.50
750
-0
0 0 .......
>< '-'
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
6.06 6.06
6.01
5.96
5.91
--0 0 0 5.86 ,.......,
>< '-' --~ 5.81 rJ)
6 .... Q)
~ 5.76
1:f 0 ..... ~ ~ 5.71 ...... ~
5.66
5.61
5.51
White Mesa Mill Cell 5A
Interim Tailings Slope
Analysis Method: Morgenstern-Price
West -Cell SA
·~· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • "'1~~ ••• • • • • 'JIIU) ••• • • • • • • • •• ... · .... · ..... • • •••••••••• , . . . . . . ..
• • •-'· 62 V +• • ••
0 50 100 150
Cell Surfac
200 250 300
East -Cell 4 B
6.01
5.96
5.91
5.86
5.81 o
0 0 ,.......,
5.76 ~
5.71
5.66
5.61
Jmgs &&-~~--=:.• ij:. • ~ Tailings
-•-I -"L .·' • ~ • I .•• :.;, ~ .. -.--· r--·-c-· '-~ , 5.56
350 400 450 500 550 600 650
5.51
700
Distance, feet FIGURE 14
• BRIDGE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS • FEBRUARY 2004
tit/trans
•
H 20-44
H 15-44
8,000 LBS.
6,000 LBS.
32,000 LBS.*
24,000 LBS.
I 14·.o.. I
:r:• W = TOTAL WEIGHT O~F_. • 3: i TRUCK AND LOAD ~
~---·-· 0.4W
I I . . I
_.-$
CLEARANCE AND
LOAD LANE WIDTH
10'-0"
U.:.LI cu3
.I ·' ** l . .t.
2'-0" 6'-0" 2'-0"
FIGURE 3.7.6A Standard H Trucks
In the design of timber floors and orthotropic steel decks (excluding transverse beams) for H 20 loading, one axle
load of24,000 pounds or two axle loads of 16,000 pounds each spaced 4 feet apart may be used, whichever produces
the greater stress, instead of the 32,000-pound axle shown.
•• For slab design, the center line of wheels shall be assumed to be l foot from face of curb. (See Article 3.24.2)
SECTION 3 LoADS 3-5
Attachment A
Sieve No. oi.meter'(mmJ
3·lil. 76.2
2 in. 50.B
1112 in. 38.1
1 in. 25.4
3/4 in. 19.1
112 IIL 12.7
318'1n. 9.530
No.4 4.750
No.10 2.000
No.30 o:eoo
No.40 0,425
No.70 0212
No.100 0.150
No. 200 0.075
No..325 0.°'45
Pan -
Sieve No. Dlameter.(ftlffl)
3.in. 76.2
21n. so.a
-, 1/2.111. '38.1
1'1n.. 25.4
314 I\. 19.1
112 In. 12.7
3/Bin. 9.530
No.4 4.750
No .. 10 2.000
No.30 0.600
No.40 0.425
'No. 70 0.2:12
N0.100 0.150
No.200 O.<J75
.No. 325 0.045
Pan -
,larak ~J./ J.' µ,;,1~s
k. jt,O~ :Cil-J/.. .ft.
:oAJ,.. t~rfs ....
5 j"'~ ,rt£' 19 r~
15',.v! 5'cr~c,,, U11Jer5r'rf--
%FINER• 100 • :!:%RETAINED
Grfndlng Test 1
Wt Retained %
(grams) Retained
.0.0 0.0%
0.0 O:o%
0.0 0.0% o.o 0.0,.
0,0 0.0%
0.0 0.0,.
0.0 0.0% o.o 0.0%
0.0' 0.0%
1.2 1.2%
4.6 4.6%
20.8 2()-..B'll,
34:8 34:8%
53.4 S3:4%
60.5 60.5% --
GrindlngTest&A
Wt. .............
(grams)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
. 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 o.o
1.3
5.2 21.r :w.1
54.4
59.7 .
100%
90%
0::: 80%
~ 70%
U. 60%
1-z 50% w
~40%
w a. 30%
20%
10%
0%
1000
y.
Retained
o.o,i.
O.O'll,
0.0%
00%
0~
0.1)'11,
0.()%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
5.2%
21,7%
3-4.1%
S..4%
59.1% -
%Finer
100.0%
100.0%
100.0'll,
100.0'll,
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
!O(U)%
100.0%
98.8%
95:4~
79.2%
65,2')(,
46.6'11,
39.5% -
%Finer
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0'11,
100.0%
100.0%
100-.0%
100.016
100.0%
98.nl.
94.R
78.3%
65.9')(,
,45.6'!1.
40.3% .
I
100
Ta
DSM Screen Undersize.Gradation
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Gtindln.g Tt!St 2A Grinding Test28
wt. Relalned % Wt. ~efained %
(g~) Retained %Rner (grams) Retained %Finer
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 1(l().O'I!, 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 O.O'llo 100.0'JI, 0.0 0.0% 100.0%,
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0"1% 100.0%
0;0 0.0% 100.09!! 0.0 0.11% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 O.ll% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
2.0 2.0% 98.0% 1.7 1.7% 98.3%
7.3 7.3% 92.7% 6.0 6";0% 94.0%
24.5 .24:S% 75.5% 22.6 22.~ n .4%
38.1 38..1,'lo 61.9% 3S.5 35.5% 64.5%
55.7 55.7% ~.3'11, :52.5 52.5"' 47.5%
62.7 62;7% 37.3111, 58.8 58.8%. 41~ -. . --.
GlfndlnaTest&S
"'""" .... """ ....
{gnun9) Retained %Finer
0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0'll,
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 318 in
0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 o.aw. 100.0%
0.0 0.()'M, 100.0%
1.0 1.0% 99.0%
4,7 4.7%' 95.3%
21.4 21,,4% 78,6%
35.9 35.9% 64,f'lio
54.4 54.4% '5.6%
61.1 Bt..1% 38:8% . -.
Jcoarse Medium Fine
Sand Sand Sand --.. ~ " ~ ....
\ '--~~
~ ' ,
' ~ I\ . i\ ~ \ I\ • ' ~
~ \ ~
' \
\ '-
' -.....
10 0.1
GRAIN DIAMETER (MM)
Gdl!dfog·Test 3A Grindfnq Test 38
Wl Retiilned. •t. Wt. Retained %
{giwna) Retained % Rnar (grams) Retained •,4 Finer
o.o 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0,0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0"ii 0.0 0.1)')1, 100.0%
0..0 0.0% 100,0W 0.0 O.O'l!r 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0'.0 0.0% 100.0% o.o ·0.0% 100,0%
0..0 0.()% 100.0% 0.0 0.()% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100'.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.()%
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0% 100.0% o:o -0.0% 100.0%
2.4 2.4% 97.6% 1.9 1.9% 98.1%
8.1 8.1% 91.9% 6.9 6.9% 93.1%
26.2 26.2% 73:8% 27.9 27.9% 72.1%
41.0 41.0% 59.004 43:9 ~:9% 56.1%
58.6 56:6'!(, 43.4% 57.4 57.4% 42.S'l(,
62.5 62.5% 37.5% B1.9 61.9'11, 38.1% -. . -. .
Grinding Test 4A Grinding T8$t4B
WLt<GtunllO -~ WLKeQIRftl 'II,
(gralT\5) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained % Finer
0.0 0.()% 100.e,i 0.0 0.1)% 100.0'll,
0.0 0.()% 100.0% o.o 0.0,,. 100.0% o.o 0.()% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100,0$
0.0 0.0% 100.o% o.o 0.0% 100,0'll,
0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0'll,
0.0 0.0% 100.0'!1.. 0.0 0.0% 100.0% o.o 0.0% 100,0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% ·o.o 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
0.0 0.0,. 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
2.7 2.7% 97.3% 2.7 2.7% 9'7:.3%
7.6 7.6% 92.4% 7.3 7.3% 92.7%
26.2 28.2% 73:8% 2S.9 25.9% 7"1.1%
38.7 38.7% 61.3% 39.2 39.2% 60.6%
57.3 57.3% 42.7% 58.3 58.3% 41.7%
65,.4 65.4% 34.S'l5. 64.6 64.6% 35.4% . . . .
Slit Clay Avera
Med Sand 6.4%
Fine Sand 49.1%
Sill 44.4%
0.01 0.001
7/20/2007
-~~ rl...,,,.n .. ..1-12 I I
...... • .....
l
N
! i.:·;c:
-r-.. :
GRANULAR HA'l'ERlALS
Uniform Materials
a. Equal apheres
(theoretieal values)
b. Standard Ottawa SAND
"· Clean, miform SAND
(fine or nedim)
d. Unifom, inorg,mic
SILT
Well-graded Materials
a. Silty SAND
Ii:"-Clean, fine to coarse
SMID
C. Micacecus SAND
d. Silty SAND & GRAVEL
MIXm sons
Sandy or Silty cu:/.
Skip-graded Silty CLAY
with a tones or rlt fgmts
Well-graded GtAVEL, SAND,
SILT & CLAY mixture
CLAY SOILS
ci.AY (302:-.50% clay sizes)
Colloidal CLAY
(---0,002 mm: 50%)
ORGANIC SOIL'l
Organic SILT
Organic CLAY
(30% -50% clay sizea)
·:. ·:;..~~ .• ~: .:..: . _it·.~-:. . ..... , ~~\:;~t;;~;:;
TABLE 6
Typical Values of Soil Index Properties
Particle Size and Gradation Voids(l) !hit We1ghtC2') (lb,/cu,ft,)
Apprm:. Submer~ed
Approxfmllte Raqe Void Ratio Porosity (%) Dry We1Rht Wet We1Rht Wei~ht
Size Range Appr(JI[. Uniform
(mm) D10 Coefficient
(11111) Cu
100%
I"-ecr .. _,_ "--,,._,_ Min K:>d. Max Min Ma Hin Mn
~ lltnin .I.O<llle <1enee .LOOlle deNJe 1.100ae MSHO deNJe loose deftlJe loose dense
---1.0 0.92 -0.35 47.6 2.6 -------
0.84 0.59 0.67 1.1 0.80 0.75 o.so 44 33 92 -110 93 131 57 69
---1.2 to 2.0 1.0 0.80 0.40 50 29 83 115 118 84 136 52 73
o.os 0.005 0.012 1.2 to 2.0 1.1 -0.40 52 29 80 -118 81 136 .51 73
2.0 0.005 0.02 5 to 10 0.90 -0.30 47 23 87 122 127 88 142 54 79
2.0 0.05 0.09 4 to 6 0.95 0.70 0.20 49 17 85 132 138 86 148 53 86 ----1.2 -0.40 55 29 76 -120 77 138 48 76
100 0,005 0.02 15 to 300 o.85 -0.14 46 12 89 -145(3 90 155131 56 92
;
2,0 0,001 0.003 10 to 30 1,8 -0.25 64 20 60 1.30 135 100 147 38 85
2.50 0.001 --1.0 -0.20 50 17 84 -140 115 151 53 89
2SO 0.001 0,002 25 to 1000 0,70 -0.13 41 11 100 140 145(4) 125 tS6<4> 62 94 .;,j;:-.
0,05 0,5µ. 0.001 -2.4 -0.50 71 33 50 105 112 94 133 31 71
0,01 101· --12 -0.60 92 37 13 90 106 71 128 8 66
----3.0 -0.55 75 35 40 -110 87 131 25 69
----4.4 -0.70 81 41 30 100 81 125 18 62
.... ~Lll\ ~lv-t (,, NAVfAC "bM1--0l, lq.'Zlo
• •
• •• • • •
40 ~---S~lo""",~r~o".:",""'.,:-:.-:,":"l:'.U"::':--:E~.-:,E:'.l:-:O::,::,~,o::R:---~~,,.M~G~L~E~O~F~S~H~E~A~R~IN~G~R~E~S~IS~T~A~N~C~E-,
1 ClAFS IS DES1&#A1EO AS A#llE OF , T
;:;,
w w a::
Cl
II.I e.
w u z < .... ~ ,,. w a:
c.:, : a: < w :::c "' IL
0
w _.I
Cl :z: <
-:;, w
20
SHEUIH RESIS1UCE Olt FIUC1IO# VS PLASTIC! y INDEX ,out. (FOR FINE GRAINED SOILS)
;·01,.,.ro FROI r,,,,,,,, SfltfSS
FA llURE llfffl.0,E AIOfE I
J,...;~-++Jro...,i::---+...;;::i,,,""-:::-T--,-..t=---'"f COIS Ol I OH I 0# '"ES S Ultf: ------t
i
SU KDA1t0 Ol'IIA Fl 0# OF
-~UT 'IA I.UES ~~ .. ---~ ..
..
,oRTIO# OT E11ECTlfl
srREHFH our ro
·rRU( COHISto••(Cr~~~-1
10
•S
~r • • T"UE A #&LE OF
l#1ER#Al TRICTIO#"
20 40 60
PLASTICITY INDEX
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
VS DENSIT~
(FOR COARSE GRA~,U.-:> !-OILS)
80 100
~ RlLA1lff Df#Sfrr
c.:, w e.
% 0 .: ~ a: ~
..J < z ca: w ...
~
(/ OlfA IHO 1"01 ~:..--,c:9---,r----t~--£,,re r, rt sr1tns
DRY UNIT WEIGHT ty0), PCF
FIGURE 3.7·
FAILUR( r1,1Lo,rs
A,,ROUIU( CIIIIIUrfCW
IS FOR COIISIOIL(SS
IAJ(IU A &.I "1#0U 1 -,usr,c ,,.,s a.,
as
Correlation• of Stren1th-Characteristics
7.3.17
oonsultir,g
~cient1srs ano
,t,ngine~rs TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
To: JoAnn Tischler, TetraTech EMJ, Denver
FROMs Tom Chapel
DATE: June 7, 2006
SUBJECT: White Mesa StabWty Analysis
MFG PROJECT: 18141JX
This memorandum presents details and results of slope stability analyses performed for an earthen
embankment at the White Mesa Project near Blanding, Utah. The embankment was designed in
approximately 1988 by Umetco Minerals Corporation, with details described in a report titled "Cell 4
Design, Tailings Management System, White Me~a Project. Blanding, Utalr. The text of that report,
excluding appendices was provided for our review, as were Shoot C4-J and Sheet C4-2, plans prepared by
Western Engineers, Inc. and dated 1anuary 17, 1989. Sheet C4-J shows the location of Cell 4 and other
facilities; and Sheet C4-2 shows cross sections at specified locations. The locations and configuration of
the section used in our analyses are described later in this memorandum. In addition to the design report
and plan sheets, we received a packet titled Dike Construction, Soil Properties, and one titled Dike
Construction, Compaction Test. These documents are copies of laboratory and field tests characterizing
the site soils from tests perfonned during design and construction of the embankment.
We understand the International Uranium (JUSA) Corporation is considering using Cell 4 to impound
water and tailings. As part of the permitting process, lUSA has been requested to evaluate the stability of
the 2h: t v embankment slope that was constructed on the Cell 4-A side of an embankment constructed
between Cells 4-A and 4-B. Tetra Tech has evaluated the stability of the 2h:1v embankment slope. Our
methodology, results, conclusions, and opinions are presented in the following paragraphs.
The design report indicates CelJ 4-A and Cell 4-B are adjacent cells of a tailing impouodment, each
approximately 1150 acre feet with final surface areas of 40 acres each. The tailings will be impounded on
the upstream side of a homogenous earth dike. The embankment that is the subject of our investigation is
a homogenous earthen embankment constructed between Cell 4-A and Cell 4-B. The general site layout
and location are shown on Figure 1.
Several geotechnical investigations were conducted at the site between 1978 aod 1981 and results are
descn"bed in the design report. The embankment was constructed of on-site soils classified as CL and/or
ML according to the Unified Soil Classification inethod (USCS). In the vicinity of Cell 4, bedrock is
reported to be sandstone of the Dakota Fonnation that was encountered at depths of 3.5 to I 3 feet. The
bedrock is described as including discontinuous lenses of claystone and siltstone. Groundwater was
found at depths of 70 and I l O feet below the ground swface in the vicinity of Cell 4.
According to the design report. the embankment base was prepared by removing topsoil, then compacting
and proof-rolling the base to identify soft areas, which were removed and replaced with suitable soils.
MFG.hie.
JBO/ Aulomtlllon Way, Sidle 10()
FortCollin.r, Colorado 80S15
r-lep,.,_ (910) 221•96IJO IF AX (970) 223-? 111
The embankment was constructed using 12 inch loose layers compacted and tested. Test results provided
to us support the methods described in the design report.
The design report included a slope stability analysis perfonned on the Cell 4-B side of the separating
embankment using a ST ABR computer model, the Ordinary Method of slices, and Bishops modified
Method of analysis. That analysis indicated a minimum factor of safety of I .S for a 25 foot high
embankment and a Jh.:lv slope, assuming a saturated, steady state condition in which water was
impounded to a level 2 feet below the crest of the embanlanent. The section was also analyzed using a
0.1 g lateral load and a minimum factor of safety of 1.1 was calculated.
Tetra Tech modeled the slope using Cell 4 cross section D-D' shown on Sheet C4-2. We assumed a
maximum crest elevation of 5608 feet, a crest width of 18 feet, a side slope of 2h: 1 v on the Cell 4-A side
of the embankment, and a side slope of 3h: l v on the Cell 4-B side of the embankment. This resulted in a
maximum embankment height of 46 feet, including 28 feet of man-placed, fine, silty sand fill over seven
feet of natural silty sand, over sandstone bedrock. Where the excavation penetrated the bedrock we
assumed a one foot thick layer was processed to a sand soil condition and recompacted in place. IUSA
indicated a minimum 3 foot freeboard will be maintained. The soil parameters used in our analysis were
taken from Figure 3.4-1 of the design report, and are shown in Table I below:
Table 1. Soll Properties
Unit Description Phi (degrees) Cohesion, c (psf) Total unit weight
(pcf)
1 water 0 0 62.4
2 Compacted fine, silty sand 30 0 123
3 Natural silty sand 28 0 120
4 bedrock ---
We evaluated the embankment stability with Slope/W software by Geoslope International, using Spencers
method, Bishops modified method, and the Ordinary method of slices. We evaluated a steady state
condition under static conditions and using a O. lg seismic loading. IUSA requested we model the slope
in a submerged condition assuming a no-strength fluid (water) as one alternative; and in a submerged
condition with an impcnneable synthetic liner/barrier as a second alternative. We understand that rapid
draw down conditions are not applicable for this application. Figures 2 and 3 show the slope conditions
and minimum factors of safety for the static and seismic conditions and the steady state, saturated
condition. Figures 4 and 5 show the slope conditions and minimum factors of safety for static and
seismic conditions assuming an impenetrable barrier between the water and the soil. Minimum safety
factors are summarized in Table 2, below:
Table 2. Minimum Factors of Safety
Figure Condition Calculated Minimum Factor of
Safety
2 Unlined alternative, static, steady state 1.42
3 Unlined Alternative, O.lg seismic 0,93
4 Lined Alternative, static 1.88
5 Lined Altt.Tilative, O. lg seismic 1.37
The Slope/W software includes a feature called "safety mapping" which plots variable numbers of slip
surfaces in addition to the critical failure surface. These radii can be seen in Figures 2 and 3 and show
primary failure planes are generaJly more deep seated, but the slope has a much higher factor of safety
against the larger failure planes. A similar plot is included in Figures 4 and S, however the slip surfaces
(including the critical radius) are very small and occur near the crest of the embankment.
The results of our analysis indicate the minimum factors of safety for the unlined alternative are lower
than recommended standards. A factor of safety of l .O indicates an unstable condition. However, these
scenarios assumed an unlined saturated, condition and are therefore not representative of the planned
construction. We understand the planned construction is with double synthetic liners with a drain
medium and solution recovery system between the liners. The unlined alternative is not a valid analysis if
the Cell is completed according to the reported plans. The lined alternative had minimum safety factors
greater than commonly accepted standards for both the static and seismic conditions. The impoundment
should not be used in an unlined condition unless additional analyses are performed that indicate
acceptable perfonnance, but if the construction is completed as described then the dike between Cell 4-A
and 4-B with the side slope of 2h:lv meets or exceeds recommended standards for stability and safety
factors.
We assumed that as-constructed soil conditions are as indicated in the design report and according to data
from tests performed during the actual construction, and significant changes have not occurred since the
time of construction. These analyses and results should be considered valid only for the conditions
described herein.
We understand the soil/liner stability issues will be addressed by others. If you have any questions
regarding our anal. · s or thi mcmorandutn, please contact the undersigned.
Thomas A. Chapel, CPG, PB
Ml<"G,lnc.
3801 Au1omt11/t1n Wity. Suite 100
For1 Collins, OJ/orado llOS25
Teltpho11r (970) Z13·V6<JO I FAX [phone]
ll
"" ~ ~ \../
DIS1'1f5 Cl:LL 3
+ +
... !ff'."";
' '
r.;J TEl1'A TECH, INC.I I FIGURE 1 I ~ SITE LOCATION MAP
~
SCALE IN FEET Fi I
0 600
~?
+
--~<
4
/
Date: JUNE2008
Project 181413X
File: LOCATION.DWG
e
e
Tl1
~ ~ V
110 .
100
90
80 -70 E. -co .c m 51) G): ::c 40
30
20
10
100
TetraTech, Inc.
•
lJJ\ ....
• . .
• • • • • • • • • • • •
•
•
200
Horizontal Distance fft]
FIGURE2
Unlined Alternative
Static Condition
•
•
•
•
•
• •
• •
•
•
• ..
•
•
• •
• • . ' .
• .. .
• • • • • • • • ~
•
• •
• •
• -•
• • • •
• • . • • . .
• .
e
300 4JO
International Uranium Corp.
Project: White Mesa (181413x)
06/01/06
ni
~ ' ~ ..............
110
100
go
80 --E. 70
:E .IIO
ICft !50 1D :c 41
30
.20
,o
0
0 100
TetraTech, Inc.
.
• .
. ·r • . • • • . . • .
• • . • • . . • . • .. . • • • . . . . . . . . JlJ.' . . • • • • . • .
• • . • . . . • • •
Critical Failure Stmice
200
Horizontal Oistance [ft}
FIGURE3
Unlined Alternative
Seismic Condition
.
.
• . . • • . • • • . •
•
300
I e
. •
• • •
e
400
International Uranium Corp.
Project: White Mesa (181413x)
06/01/06
ft\
~ ~
1,./"
110
100
go
80
2 ~I '-:' ...
C
0)
"<i> :c
30
20
10
TetraTech, Inc.
• \\\II I I • I • I • I I -• . . ... . ii If/:/ ./ II .... ... .... .... : . -. .
• • . . . • • I •• I II . . . . • . •
/Critical Failure Surface
Horizontal Distance [ft]
FIGURE4
Lined Alternative
Static Condition
. .
•
•
• • . . . . . . .
•
International Uranium Corp.
Project: While Mesa (181413x)
06/01/06
1e
I e
111
~ ~
'-../
110
100
90
~ ~~ ..... .c. 0) .0)
:::c ·4J
30
TetraTech, Inc.
•
. :1 . : ./ -. ' .
· ".: .7.:°f.: I I ... : : . . . . . . . .
.... /// .: ... . ....... : . .
/Criti~ Fairure Surface
HorizoritalOistance [ft]
FIGURES
Lined Alternative
Seismic Condition
. . . . . . • •
. . • • .
•
International Uranium Corp.
Project: White Mesa (181413x)
06/01/06
e
I e
G
C Ol,5UI II ng
sc,en1is!s and
July 13, 2006
Tetra Tech EM, Inc.
950 17th Street, 22nd Floor
Denver, Colorado 80202
Attn:
Subject:
Ms. JoAnn Tischler
Draft
Soil Property Verification and
Slope Stability Analyses
Earthen Embankment between Cells 4A and 48,
IUC White Mesa Project
Blanding, Utah
MFG, Inc.
A IE mA TECH COMPANY
f-(11 I Coll111'> Oll1 ce
3f.l(l I At tlOti"tillion W;1y , SlitlC:' LOO
Porl Colltn!;, CO fiO'J)~)
9 /tJ .:0.:l 1)600
rm,: CJ7n.nJ./ 11 1
MFG Project No. 1814 l 3x
Tetra Tech MFG prepared a technical memorandum dated June 7, 2006, and a letter dated June 9, 2006
describing slope stability analyses, assumptions, and recommendations for verification of soil prope1ties
for an earthen embankment at the International Uranium (USA) Corporation, White Mesa Project near
Blanding, Utah.
On June 15, 2006, Tetra Tech drilled an exploratory boring in the embankment between Cell 4A and
Cell 4B at the approximate location shown on Figure I (attached). Descriptions of soils encountered in
the boring are shown on the Borehole log (also attached). The boring was drilled to a depth of 30 feet
and sampled at 5 foot intervals using a 2 inch diameter California sampler driven into the soil by a 140
pound weight dropped 30 inches (a Standard Penetration Test, SPT). Samples were examined by a
geotechnical engineer in our soils laboratory. Samples were selected and tested for moisture and density
and Atterberg Limits to determine their classification and similarity to properties identified in previous
geotechnical reports for the project. A triaxial test was performed to compare the angle of internal
friction and cohesion of the in-place soil with the values determined by the original designers in I 98 I .
The moisture and density of the samples tested are shown in Table I below:
White Mesa Stability Analyses-Draft
7/2/2008
Page 2
Table 1. Soil Properties
Depth Description Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pct) Moisture content
(%)
10 Silty sand 136.5 125.0 9.2
20 Silty sand 140.5 126.3 11.3
25 Silty sand 134.7 122.6 9.9
-Average 137.2 124.6 10.1
Atterberg limits tests indicate a liquid limit of 25, and a Plasticity Index of 13, with 50 percent silt and
clay sized particles (passing the number 200 sieve). Triaxial testing indicated an effective angle of
internal friction of26.5 degrees and a drained cohesion of957.5 psf.
These test results indicate although the samples were visually classified as silty sand, laboratory tests
indicate the embankment soils tested are a very sandy clay rather than sand and silty sand as repo1ted by
others and assumed in our initial analysis.
We performed additional slope stability analyses using the following soil properties: an average moist
unit weight of 137 pcf, an angle of internal friction of 26 degrees, and an effective cohesion of 900 psf.
We calculated the minimum factors of safety shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Revised Minimum Factors of Safety
Condition Calculated Minimum Factor of
Safety
Unlined alternative, static, steady state 2.45
Unlined Alternative, 0.1 g seismic 1.67
Lined Alternative, static 4.61
Lined Alternative, 0 .1 g seismic 3.21
Therefore the factors of safety calculated and presented in our June 2 Technical Memorandum are
conservative. In fact, analyses using the measured soil properties indicate that the embankment exceeds
typical minimum acceptable safety factors even in the event leakage were to occur from the liner and
produce a saturated condition as shown in Figure 3 of our previous memorandum.
If you have any questions regarding our analysis, our previous correspondence, or this letter, please
contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
Tetratech MFG, Inc.
P:\PRJ\SDWP\Current Projects\SC0349 IUC White Mesa Mill\UDEQ Responses 4B\Round I \MFG Soil
Report\soil property verification.07-07-06,tac.doc
White Mesa Stability Analyses-Draft
7/2/2008
Page2
Thomas A. Chapel, CPO, PE
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
2 copies sent
P:\PRJ\SDWP\Current Projects\SC0349 IUC White Mesa Mill\UDEQ Responses 4B\Round I\MFG Soil
Report\soil prope1ty verification.07-07-06.tac.doc
Ti
~ ~
'-'
. ~ :-·:~.< ,,_-.,_: t ~);1~; ::~~ 1; ~
-', ·b:J_t:-<t,J-·'·~,__; ·\ ;, --·,::· "' ;$f:)Jiit \(~
.,-,-i -,,J'-'-T·~.:.;.i'~--.,.._., '<-~ ... , ... . ....... r~· -.. ~. ~ ',,P1RQJ6C.J;t·~"· ·.,;,;: \ . ...--r::--~~~-t._:.:. _.,, v ~~. " -~ . II> ( ':";· L" oc· A.;,::1n{,.,; :.:-~·-· ·1· : ; l .. ~ 'l;!f,.l_lil,.."'.L~·--· ~ ··~~ '·j ;:;:,-,!;;';: «~,=G. ·::..'·-· -~~-! .w 1-.. );~~~:f~,:~:-..'s~:.~l ''.·:.:;:/ ,~-~:,~ ~,eS,
.'.'-.~ ~-•(1.' ...•. ,:!\6:!,.•~::;>~'.~;::.,'eLANDING fi'i_i '
~~;i;i~~!~i
--~\~: :--~---\l :~~~;,rr'.b~rf
VICINITY MAP
,;;, 4-INCH SOLID AUGER TO 30 FT.
SAMPLE AT 5 FT. INTERVALS
BACKFILL WITH BENTONITE
("A:: J TETRA TECH. INC.
-
! .. (
,.-: @ . ;•
~-, ..
'"'( :~to~ ~ ·~
SCALE IN FEET
I
600
EXISTtNG CELL 3 ~-
+ + ._j_
I
'· ........ ··------'-,_( ) •~ )•HP:'.1
/
I
/~
PROJECT AREA
Date: JUNE 2006 FIGURE 1
SITE LOCATION MAP Project: 181413X
File: LOCATION.DWG
BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE
MFG, Inc. NO.:
consulting scientists end engineers PAGE: 1 OF 3
DATE: 6/15/06 MFG-1
PROJECT INFORMATION BOREHOLE LOCATION
PROJECT: WHITE MESA
PROJECT NO.: 181413X
CLIENT: TETRA TECH EM/
OWNER: INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (/USA) CORPORATION
LOCATION: BLANDING, UTAH
SEE FIGURE 1
FIELD INFORMATION
DATE & TIME ARRIVED: 6/15/06 9:00AM
BOREHOLE LOGGED BY: NMT
VISITORS: NONE
WEATHER: PARTLY CLOUDY. SLIGHT BREEZE, APPROX. 80°
DRILLING INFORMATION
DRILLING COMPANY: DA SMITH DRILLING
START TIME: 11:10AM
BORING DEPTH: APPROX. 31 ' BORING DIA.: 6"
DRILLING METHOD: CME 75 SOLID STEM AUGER
SAMPLING METHOD: 2-IN CA SAMPLES
TIME DRILLING COMPLETE: 12:50PM
BOREHOLE COMPLETION/ ABANDONMENT INFORMATION
START TIME: 12:50PM COMPLETE TIME: 1:10PM
INSTRUMENTATION: NONE BACKFILL: BENTON/TE
GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS
GROUNDWATER WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING
FOLLOWING FIELD WORK
TIME OF CLEAN-UP COMPLETE: 1:10PM TIME LEFT SITE: 1:50PM
NOTES:
MFG, Inc.
consul/Ing scientists and engineers
DRIVE SAMPLES
BOREHOLE LOG
PROJECT: WHITE MESA PAGE: 2 OF 3
PROJECT NO.: __.1.,._81.,.4..,,1..,.3X.,__ __________ DATE: 6/15106
BOREHOLE
NO.:
MFG-1
DEPTH
(FT)
CORE ADD'L LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION RECOV. SAMPLE BLOWS SAI.IPlES GRAPHIC
TYPE (PER 6") RECOV.
COAL COVER AT SURFACE (APPROX. 0.25') -0 -t---t----t----t--+---+:,,._..=:-,,::,._.,..,...,, ,:t-----------------''---------=-------------i
-1-
-2-
-3-
..... -
-4---
-5 -------+----+--!
,_ 6 ---
-7---
I-8 ---
-e-
CA
B
A
11
19
33
17"
-10~------+----+--l --
-11-
,--
-12-
,_ -
-13-
,--
-14-
,_ -
,--
>-16-
,_ -
-11-
,_ -
>-18-
-19-
,_ -
-20-
CA
B
A
CA
B
A
15
32
43
13
18
36
13"
18"
~;.~.;~ SILTY CLAY (0 TO APPROX. 5.5')
t-:-:..:~:..~ SLIGHTLY MOIST, LIGHT OLIVE BROWN (2.5Y 5/3), VERY STIFF SILTY CLAY FILL, ::_~:-:'? :-: TRACE SAND, TRACE PEBBLES, WHITE PRECIPITATE, ZONES OF COLOR 1-----..,;.:-:.;.;.:-....:.; a-:ff:..:.;:;:..:
I:,'-;"'.-:-:":-=
~~:.:~~ ~:-:~~
~·~·~~·~
Y -r • • .. •' ,!.:·:i t.::r.:: t-,,_ ... -·-··-··
CHANGE TO RED (2.5YR 4/6).
APPROX. 0.5' -MOIST.
APPROX. 6.5' -SANDSTONE FRAGMENTS, DRY, PINK (5YR 8/3), VERY DENSE,
MEDIUM CEMENTATION, FINE GRAIN.
APPROX. 15' -ZONES OF SANDY CLAY VARIOUS COLORS, MOIST.
BOREHOLE LOG
MFG, Inc.
consu/1/ng scientists and engineers PROJECT: WHITE MESA PAGE: 3 OF 3
PROJECT NO.: ~1B~1.._.4..._1"'3X..,__ __________ DATE: 6/15106
DRIVE SAMPLES DEPTH CORE ADD'L LITHOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION (FT) RECOV. SAMPLE BLOWS SMWLE5 GRAPHIC
TYPE (PER 6') RECOV.
--CA 15
B 29 18"
-21 -A 50/6"
..... -
-22-
--
-23 -
--
-24-
-25-1---1---t----+---t
--
-26-
--
-27 ,
--
-28 -
--
-29-
CA
B
A
12
13
20
13"
:.f~~t··
·.~;.:: .. '.·~
~t~·j~,
?~~-i ;., ,··-.. .,.. ::;-.:,,;~'..; i~l:~~j·
i;t:~i. -~:.::--:·::: ,,;-::'t,::;'"::...;
,; :-:·-..: :-, ::: ~:;:;-;::~~.
.. ::,:~::-:,~: .•..:. ........ . ~.:..:·::-:":...·n.
SIL TY SAND (APPROX. 5.5' TO APPROX. 30')
SEE DESCRIPTION ON PREVIOUS PAGE.
BOREHOLE
NO.:
MFG-1
,,_.,J •. ~ --------------------~-':-:i<--:::· v SANDSTONE (APPROX. 30' TO E.O.B.) --
-30 ----t---t----+---t ---CA 38 -:,:,:.:-:-:,:,:,: SLIGHTLY MOIST, PINK (2.5YR 8/3), VERY DENSE SANDSTONE, FINE TO MEDIUM
--B 13" :-:-:-:,:-:,:.:,:. CEMENTATION, FINE GRAIN.
-31 -..1----1--A-1---50-/5_"+---+----1 .... · .._· · .... · .._· · ... · _._· ·--E.0.6. = 31 .0'
--
-32-
--
-33-
--
-34 -
-35 -
--
-36-
--
-37-
--
-38-
--
-39 -
--
-40-
.... TRI/ENVIRONMENTAL, INC .
./ ~ A Texas Research International Company
INTERFACE FRICTION TEST REPORT
Client: Agru
Project: Anne Steacy
Test Date: 7/5-7/5/05
TRI Log#:
Test Method:
E2201-75-03
ASTM D 5321
Tested Interface: Agru 60 mil Studliner vs. Agru 60 mil Smooth Geomembrane
'i E: g: 400 ! rn
~ .. .. .c rn
E e 200 ·;.
:I
0-------,....--------.-------t
0 200 400
Normal Stress (psf)
--Maximum Shear Stress (Linear Fit)
Trial Number
Bearing Slide Resistance (lbs)
Normal Stress (psf)
Maximum Shear Stress (psf}
Corrected Shear Stre:
Secant Angle (degrees)
600
Upper Box: Agru 60 mil smooth Geomembrane
Lower Box: Agru 60 mil Studliner
Interface Interface soaked and loading applied
Conditioning: for a minimum of 3 hours prior to shear
Box Dimension: 12"x12"x4"
Test Condition: Wet
Shearing Rate: 0.2 inches/minute
1 2
9 10
125 250
36 82
27 72
12.1 16.0
3
13
500
161
148
16.5
RESULTS: Maximum Friction Angle and Y-intercept
Regression Friction Angle (degrees):
Y-intercept or Regression Adhesion (psf):
Regression Line:
Regression Coefficient (r sauared):
Y=
16.2
0
0.290
0.986
• X + 0
John M. Allen, E.I.T., 07/11/2005
Note: The regression line includes the origin. Quality Review/Date
The testing herein is based upon accepted industry practice as well as the test method listed. Test results reported herein do not apply
to samples other than those tested. TRI neither accepts responsibility. for nor makes claim as to the final use and purpose of the material.
TRI observes and maintains client confidentiality. TRI limits reproduction of this report, except in full, without prior approval of TRI
9063 Bee Caves Road D Austin, TX 78733-6201 D [phone] o [phone] D 1-800-880-TEST
TRI/ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
A Texas Research International Company
INTERFACE FRICTION TEST REPORT
Client: Agru
Project: Anne Steacy
Test Date: 7/5-7/5/05
TRI Log#:
Test Method:
E2201-75-03
ASTM D 5321
Tested Interface: Agru 60 mil Studliner vs. Agru 60 mil Smooth Geomembrane
! ~ ~ 400 : .c: Ill
1 ..
:;l 200 Q. .<a 0 ..
f!' j
0 200 400
Normal Shear Stress (psi)
--Large Displacement Shear Stress (Linear Flt)
Trial Number
Bearing Slide Resistance (lbs)
Normal Stress (psf)
Large Displacment Shear Stress (psf}
Corrected Shear Stress (psf)
Secant Angle (degrees)
800
Upper Box: Agru 60 mil smooth Geomembrane
Lower Box: Agru 60 mil Studliner
Interface Interface soaked and loading applied
Conditioning: for a minimum of 3 hours prior to shear
Box Dimension: 12"x12"x4"
Test Condition: Wet
Shearing Rate: 0.2 inches/minute
1 2 3
9 10 13
125 250 500
48 90 158
39 80 145
17.2 17.7 16.2
RESULTS: Large Displacement Friction Angle and Y-intercept
at 3.5-in. of Displacement
Regression Friction Angle (degrees):
Y-lntercept or Regression Adhesion (psf):
Regression Line: Y=
Rearession Coefficient (r squared):
Large displacement shear stresses interperted at 2 inches of
diplacement due to strain hardening effects.
15.7
6
0.281
0.997
* X + 6
John M. Allen, E.1.T .• 07/11/2005
Quality Review/Date
The testing herein is based upon accepted Industry practice as well as the test method listed. Test results reported herein do not apply
to samples other than those tested. TRI neither accepts responsibility for nor makes claim as to the final use and purpose of the material
TRI observes and maintains client confidentiality. TRI limits reproduction of this report, except in full, without prior approval of TRI.
9063 Bee Caves Road D Austin, TX 78733-6201 D [phone] D [phone] D 1-800-880-TEST
itlii TRI/ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
/"" A Texas Research International Company
I ~
~
AGRU INTERFACE FRICTION TEST
Agru 60 mil Smooth Geomembrane vs.
Agru 60 mil Studliner
200 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
180 +--------------/,rk------------------------------1
~ ~~-I ~ r '"h. "tF-~ 1604,.... ...
__ 140 L----------------------------1 "+-Cl) ~ 120 L ______________________________ I
Cl)
~ 1001--------------------------=---===-------~~-----, +-" en
S-eo 80
Q)
..c en
40 ;,. -.·.ii.· ._.····ii .. ) ~~~~ I
20 ~-=-----------------------------------------1
o L-+----1--..--1-------+----+----+---+----t---+-----+----1--..----.:-~--1
0.0 1.0
TRI Log No. E2201-75-03
2.0
Displacement (inches)
3.0 4.0
0>1'· ~ c/
o 125 psf 0250 psf b..500 psf
9063 Bee Caves Road D Austin. TX 78733-6201 iJ [phone] D FAX [phone] D 1-800-880-TEST
GEOSYNTEC CONSULT ANTS -DENISON MINES
INTERFACE DIRECT SHEAR TESTING (ASTM D 5321)
Upper Shear Box: Steel plate with textured surafce
GSE GNS-300E geonet #131340947/
GSE 60-mil B/W smooth HDPE geomembrane #104152973 with white side up/
Lower Shear Rox: Concrete sand
2000 7500
Shear Strength 0 a R2
--4A --4B --4C Parameteri2l (deg) (pst)
1600 6000 Peak 11 15 0.995
LD 11 10 0.996
<::' <::' "' 0 Peak "' C. =-1200 ~ 4500 D LD '-'
~ -..... --Linear (Peak) "" el) ... = --Linear (LD) Q ~ ... ... -... 00 .: 800 ~ 3000 ~ .r::: ~ 00 .r::: 00
400 ,,-1500 ~ 'F
0 . 0 . . . . ' 0 ..
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 7500
Displacement (in.) Normal stress (pst)
Test Shear Normal Shear GCL Soaking Consolidatiorl1) Subgrade Soil Cover Soil GCL Shear Stress Failure
No. Box Size Stress Rate Stress Time Stress Time 'Yd (llj O)r 'Yd (llj Olr (llj Olr 'tp 'LD Mode
(in. X in. (psf) (in./min) (psf) (hour) (psf) (hour) (pct) (%) (%) (pcf) (%) (%) (%) (%) (psf) '(psi)
4A 12 X 12 1440 0.20 ---. -----. --324 316 (I)
4B 12 X 12 2880 0.20 ---. --. ----. 553 552 (1)
4C 12 X 12 5760 0.20 --. ------. -. 1172 1162 (1)
NOTES:
(1) Shear failure occurred at the interface between the geonet and white side of geomernbrane.
(2) Toe reported total-stress parameters offiiction angle and adhesion were determined from a best-fit line drawn through the test data. Caution should be exercised in using these strength
parameters for applications involving normal stresses outside the range of the stresses covered by the test series. The large-displacement (LD) shear strength was calculated using the shear force
measured at the end of the test.
DATE OF REPORT: 5/15/2010
~ FJGURENO. C-4
SGI TtsTIMG sat~ I.LC PROJECT NO. SGI10027
DOCUMENT NO.
FILE NO.
QJI::;A)
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Client: _EF"----Project: White Mesa Mill -Cell SA & SB
Title of Computations
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
Signature ~-----
(peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
Printed Nrune Keaton Botelho, P .E.
Title Project Engineer
Signature ~
Printed Name KeatonBotclho, P .E.
Title
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By
SC0634.SpillwayCalcSASB.20121213.F.calc.docx
Checked by
Geosyntece>
consultants
Project/
Proposal No.: SC0634
Task No.
J .2. / .2. C. / I.J,
Date
I 2. /.2.c. /1 J..
Date
Date
Approval
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Page 1 of 6
Written by: R. Flynn
Client: Energy
Fuels
OBJECTIVE
Date: \Z} l'§:/ \2-.Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Project: White Mesa Mill-
Cells SA and SB
Project/ SC0634
Proposal No.:
SPILLWAY CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
Task 02
No.:
The purpose of this calculation is to estimate the capacity of the spillway designed for
Cells 5A and 5B. Cells 5A and 5B will be used for process liquids evaporation and
disposal of tailings and by-products of the ore processing operations at the site. Initially,
Cell 5A will contain excess runoff from the upstream Cells 2, 3, 4A, and 4B during the
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP); 6 hour storm event. Following construction of
Cell 5B, excessive runoff from the upstream Cells 2 through SA will be contained in
Cell SB. The spillway between Cells 4B and SA is located at the northeast corner of
Cell 5A and is designed to pass excess runoff not retained in Cells 2 through 4B during
the PMP event. The spillway between Cells SA and SB will be located in the southeast
and southwest corners of Cells 5A and SB, respectively, and is designed to pass excess
runoff not retained in Cells 2 through SA during the PMP event.
ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were used for completion of this calculation:
• The watershed areas of the Cells are:
Watershed Area
Cell 2 87 acre
Cell 3 83 acre
Cell 4A 42 acre
Cell 4B 44.5 acre
Cell SA 42 acre
Cell SB 42 acre
• The spillway conveying flows were designed with the following discharges:
Spillway Flow
Cell2 to Cell 3 1283 cfs
Cell 3 to Cell 4A 1224 cfs
Cell 4A to Cell 4B 2507 cfs
Cell 4B to Cell SA *To Be Determined
Cell SA to Cell 5B *To Be Determined
SC0634.SpillwayCalc5A58.20121213.F.calc.docx
GeosyntecD
consultants
Page 2 of 6
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: \ t\ \ '6\ \ '1.; Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,z\~hi
Client: Energy Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0634 Task 02
Fuels Cells 5A and 5B Proposal No.: No.:
• Runoff from the Cells were calculated using a weighted average of the prior
Cell's runoff:
o The area weighted discharge (Q) for Cell 3 is: 2507 cfs/170ac = 14.75
cfs. Therefore, the design Q for Cell 4A is 14.75 cfs/ac * 42 acres= 620
cfs.
o The area weighted Q for Cell 4B is: 14.75 cfs/acre*44.5 acres= 656 cfs
o The area weighted Q for Cell SA is: 14.75 cfs/acre*42 = 620 cfs
• During the PMP event after Cell SA construction, Cells 2 through 4B are at
capacity and the discharge passing through the 4B spillway is the sum of the
four design flows: Qcell 2 + Qcell 3 + Qcell 4A + Qcell 48 = 1283 cfs + 1224 cfs + 620
cfs + 649 cfs = 3,783 cfs.
• During the PMP event after Cell SB construction, Cells 2 through SA are at
capacity and the discharge passing through the SA spillway is the sum of the
five design flows: Qcell 2 + Qcell 3 + Qcell 4A + Qcell 48 + Qccll 5A = 1283 cfs + 1224
cfs + 620 cfs + 656 cfs + 620 cfs = 4,403 cfs.
• The SA spillway is designed with a bottom width of 40 feet, 10: 1 (horizontal:
vertical) side slopes, a channel slope of 2 percent, total depth of 5.5 feet (flow
depth of 2.7 feet), and finished with smooth concrete (Manning's n of 0.015).
(Attachment B)
• The SB spillway is designed with a bottom width of 35 feet, 10: 1 (horizontal:
vertical) side slopes, a channel slope of 1.5 percent, total depth of 4 feet (flow
depth of 3.2 feet), and finished with smooth concrete (Manning's n of 0.015).
(Attachment B)
SPILLWAY CAPACITY CALCULATIONS
The spillway capacity is estimated using the Manning's equation:
Q = (l .49/n)*R213*S 112* A
Where:
Q-Discharge (cfs),
n -Roughness Coefficient,
R -Hydraulic Radius (ft),
SC0634.SpillwayCalc5A58.20121213.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
Written by: R. Fl:rnn
Client: Energy Project:
Fuels
S -Channel Slope (ft/ft),
A -Flow Area (ft2)
Cell 4B into Cell SA
Date: 1'.fdW)lrJ..; Reviewed by:
White Mesa Mill-Project/
Cells SA and SB Proposal No.:
consultants
Page 3 of 6
G. Corcoran Date: iil1i1,~
SC0634 Task 02
No.:
The top hinge of the spillway from Cell 4B to Cell 5A is at an elevation of 5598 ft msl.
The lowest elevation around the crest of Cell 4B is 5596 ft msl and the wave run up
factor is 0.77 ft (from the 10 January 1990 Drainage Report); therefore, a minimum of
2.77 ft of spillway freeboard (i.e. the top of liquid flow through the 4B to 5A spillway is
5595.23 ft msl) is necessary to prevent overtopping Cell 4B at the lowest point along
the crest while allowing discharge of the runoff into Cell SA. A discharge depth of 2.7
(i.e. the bottom of the spillway is at elevation 5592.53 ft msl) is calculated to verify that
the design Q could pass the spillway with freeboard.
Figure 1 -Channel Dimensions for Trapezoidal Channels
Note: Freeboard = D-<i !or all selection
Cross·sectional Wetted
.i.reaa perimeler, p
bd + Zd2 b + 2d v'z2 + 1
Trapezoidal cross section
Discharge with Freeboard
n= 0.015
b = 40 ft
Z= 10
d = 2.7 ft (assumed depth of flow)
A= (40 x 2.7) + 10 x 2.72 = 181 ft2
R = NP· R = ((40 x 2.7)+(10 x 2.72))/(40+(2 x 2.7)x(102+ l)°.s) = 1.92 ft
S = 0.02
Qall = (1.49/0.015) X l.92213x0.0zl12 x 181 = 3,924 cfs
In summary, the Cell 4B into Cell SA spillway will have a total depth of 5.5 ft (from
elevation 5598 ft msl), a total top width of 150 ft, a bottom width of 40 ft, and a cross
slope of 2 percent.
SC0634.SpillwayCalc5A5B.20 I 21213 .F.calc.docx
Written by: R.Fl:tnn Date: ,11(<>~ \'v
Client: Energy Project: White Mesa Mill-
Fuels Cells 5A and 5B
Cell SA into Cell SB
Reviewed by:
Project/
Proposal No.:
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 4 of 6
G. Corcoran
SC0634
Date:
Task 02
No.:
The top hinge of the Cell SA spillway is at an elevation between The capacity
calculation for the spillway used the channel dimensions presented above and asswned
a 0.77 ft freeboard corresponding to the wave run-up factor (from the 10 January 1990
Drainage Report). Therefore, a discharge depth of 3.23 ft is calculated to verify that the
design Q could pass with spillway freeboard
Discharge with Freeboard
n = 0.015
b = 35 ft
Z= 10
d = 3.23 ft (assumed depth of flow)
A= (35 X 3.23) + 10 X 3.232 = 217 ft2
R = AIP; R = ((35 x 3.23)+(10 x 3.232))/(35+(2 x 3.23)x(I02+ I)°-5) = 2.18 ft
S = 0.015
Qall = (1.49/0.015) x 2.18213x0.015112 x 217 = 4,440 cfs
In summary, the Cell SA into Cell 5B spillway will have a total depth of 4 ft, a total top
width of 115 ft, a bottom width of 35 ft, and a cross slope of 1.5 percent.
CONCLUSION
The allowable flows for the spillways, as designed, are estimated to be 3,924 cfs and
4,440 cfs (Cells SA and 5B, respectively) which are greater than the flow rates for the
PMP events, 3,783 cfs and 4,403 cfs for Cells SA and SB, respectively. Iterating on the
discharge depth, the rating curve (Depth vs. Q) for the spillway is presented as Figures
2 and 3.
The spillway shown on Sheets 3B and 10 of the Construction Drawings show the Cell
SA to Cell SB spillway with a top hinge elevation of 5585 ft msl. The lowest elevation
around the crest of Cell 5A is 5588 ft msl. Accounting for the wave run up factor of
0. 77 ft the top of liquid flow over the Cell 5A to Cell SB spillway is at elevation
5587.23 ft msl. These elevations do not necessarily correspond to the capacity
calculations presented herein. However; the spillway dimensions corresponding to the
elevations on the Construction Drawings result in a spillway with greater capacity than
the spillway designed in this calculation package.
SC0634.SpillwayCalc5A5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec 0
consultants
Page 5 of 6
Written by: R.Fl1::nn Date: 1:Jd,ih11 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,?:["1,2
Client: Energy Project: White MesR Mill-Project/ SC0634 Task Ol
Fuels Cells SA and SB Proposal No.: No.:
Figure 2 -Rating Curve for Spillway SA.
Cell SA -Depth vs. Discharge
10000
9000
8000 -7000 ~ C,I 6000 -~ t)J) 5000 ""' ('2 -= 4000 C,I
rlJ 3000 .... ~ 2000
1000
-
i;'
I~
. ,i' . ~---"""
,~
-; .,
i.-' .
i,.,'
....
-.,.i-... -. .... ...... ,,,. ... ._ ...
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
Depth (ft)
SC0634.SpillwayCalc5ASB.20121213.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec C>
consultants
Page 6 of 6
Wrillcn by: R.Flynn
Client: Energy
Fuels
Date: \t,j 1~1 \'v' Reviewed by: G. Corcornn
Project: White Mesa Mill-
Cells 5A and SB
Project/ SC0634
Proposal No.:
Figure 3 -Rating Curve for Spillway 5B
8000
7000
~ 6000
~ 5000 ~ = 4000
'5 3000 .~
Q 2000
1000
0
References
.
-
-
-
.
0 0.5
Cell 5B -Depth vs. Discharge
i"i"
i.,,,
i,,,""
,i,,,
,..i;
, ...
,,,., ... -_,,,. ...... --...... ...... _.,. ... .-
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Depth (ft)
,~
4
Date:
Task 02
No.:
4.5
Mays, Larry W., "Water Resomces Engineering, 2005 Edition." John Wiley & Sons,
Inc, 2005.
SC0634.SpillweyCalcSA5B.20121213.F.calc.docx
°'-'1~1 L~ V0.1 \'W°'--+<.r~~ ~~{).:)i'UXiS""
M,+\'(Y)/ ~Y"ln W d~ ~'Sa--ts1 \nc.... 1 7-c£:15'.. 5.1 Steady Uniform Flow 91
Table S.1.1 Values of the Roughness Coefficient n ( continued)
(Boldface figures are values generally recommended in design)
'Iype of channel and description Minimum Normal
c. Concrete
1. Trowel finish 0.011 0.013
2. Float finish 0.013 O.Ql5
3. Finished, with gravel on bottom O.ol5 0.017
4. Unfinished 0.014 0.017
5. Gunite, good section 0.016 0.019
6. Gunite, wavy section 0.018 0.022
7. On good excavated rock 0.017 0.020
8. On irregular excavated rock 0.022 0.027
d. Concrete bottom float finished with sides of
I. Dressed stone in mortar O.ol5 0.017
2. Random stone in mortar 0.017 0.020
3. Cement rubble masonry, plastered 0.016 0.020
4. Cement rubble masonry 0.020 0,025
5. Dry rubble or riprap 0.020 0.030
e. Gravel bottom with sides of
1. Formed concrete 0.017 0.020
2. Random stone in mortar 0.020 0.023
3. Dry rubble or riprap 0.023 0.033
f. Brick
1. Glazed 0.011 0.013
2. In cement mortar 0.012 0.015
g. Masonry
l. Cemented rubble 0.017 0.025
2. Dry rubble 0.023 0.032
h. Dressed ashlar 0.013 0.015
i. Asphalt
1. Smooth 0.013 0.013
2. Rough 0.016 0.016
j. Vegetal lining 0.030
C. Excavated or dredged
a. Earth, straight and uniform
1. Clean, recently completed 0.016 O.D18
2. Clean, after weathering 0.018 0.022
3. Gravel, uniform section, clean 0.022 0.025
4. With short grass, few weeds 0.022 0.027
b. Earth, winding and sluggish
1. No vegetation 0.023 0.025
2. Grass, some weeds 0.025 0.030
3. Dense weeds or aquatic plants in deep channels 0.030 0.035
4. Earth bottom and rubble sides 0.028 0.030
5. Stony bottom and weedy banks 0.025 0.035
6. Cobble bottom and clean sides 0.030 0.040
c. Dragline-excavated or dredged
1. No vegetation 0.025 0.028
2. Light brush on banks 0.035 0.050
d. Rockcuts
1. Smooth and uniform 0.025 O.D35
2. Jagged and irregular 0.035 0.040
c. Channels not maintained, weeds and brush uncut
1. Dense weeds, high as flow depth 0.050 0.080
2. Clean bottom, brush on sides 0.040 0.050
3. Sarne, highest stage of flow 0.045 0.070
4. Dense brush, high stage 0.080 0.100
Maximum
O.Q15
0.016
0.020
0.020
0.023
0.025
0.020
0.024
0.024
0.030
0.035
0.025
0.026
0.036
O.D15
0.018
0.030
O.D35
0.017
0.500
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.033
0.030
0.033
0.040
0.035
0.040
0.050
0.033
0.060
0.040
0.050
0.120
0.080
0.110
0.140
Geosyntec t>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project/
Client: _E_F__ Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells 5A and 5B Proposal No.: SC0634
Task No. 02
Title of Computations Side Slo Evaluation-Veneer Stabili .~___::_;:~c.....:....a.:.,.<;.....;:.,___.;.;;.._.:_;.__...;._ _ _.:_..11-.: _____ _;_ _ _;_ _ _;__..,._ __
Computations by: Signature ------+-,-......:...---'--------+,<"--.......,,....--Printed Name
Title
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked
by:
Signature ~
(peer reviewer)
Computations
Checked by:
Computations
backchecked by:
(originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Approval notes:
PrintedName ~
Signature
Printed Name
Title
Title ncipal Engineer
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By
SC0349/SC0634.VeneerStability5A5B.2012121 O.F .calc.docx
Checked by
\'1-( 1 ~11 -i
Date
I l / ;J..c.-I fJ ••
Date
Date
Approval
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 1 of 7
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 11/14/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 12/1m , 2
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
SIDE SLOPE RISER TRENCH STABILITY EVALUATION
VENEER STABILITY OF GEOSYNTHETIC-SOIL LINED SLOPES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the tension developed within the geosynthetic-soil layered side slope riser
trench liner system of the tailings pond liner system of the White Mesa Mill Cells 5A
and 5B in Blanding, Utah.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The calculations suggest that the minimum peak geosynthetic interface friction angle of
23 degrees and no peak adhesion meets the requirement to prevent the development of
tension in the geosynthetic components of the side slope riser trench liner system.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The stability analysis of the geosynthetic-soil layered systems was carried out using the
approach outlined by Koerner and Soong [1998] (Attachment A). This approach
calculates the driving force of an active soil wedge along a geosynthetic-soil layered
side slope and compares it to the resisting force of the complementary passive soil
wedge to evaluate the overall factor of safety against failure. The method presented by
Koerner and Soong [1998] allows for the consideration of a uniform depth soil layer
and the influence of dynamic equipment loading.
SIDE SLOPE RISER TRENCH LINER SYSTEM
The side slope liner system consists .of, from top to bottom (Figure 1):
• 2 ft gravel;
• Cushion Geotextile;
• 60-mil HDPE Geomembrane, textured (primary);
• Cushion Geotextile;
• 60-mil HDPE Geomembrane, textured (secondary);
• Cushion Geotextile;
SC0634.VeneerStability5A5B.20l21210.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 2 of 7
Written by: R. FIIDD Date: 11/14/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1zl~l1t
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
• 60-mil HDPE Geomembrane, textured (tertiary); and
• Prepared subgrade.
The critical side slope inclination is a maximum of 3.0H:l.OV. The maximum height of
the side slope riser trench is 46 vertical feet in the southeast comer of Cell SB and 46
feet in the southwest corner of Cell SA.
MATERIAL PARAMETERS
Based on a review of potential liner interfaces, the likely critical interface has been
identified as the textured HDPE geomembrane and non-woven geotextile. Based on
laboratory test data of material similar to that intended for the site, this interface is
assumed to have ashear strength of approximately 28 degrees and no adhesion
(Attachment B).
Geosynthetic Interface:
The geosynthetic interface friction angle was varied to evaluate the minimum allowable
value to obtain no tension at a minimum factor of safety value of 1.3. A literature
review was performed to evaluate if the calculated minimum allowable interface
friction value is achievable in addition to laboratory testing performed on the material
anticipated for this project.
REVIEW OF REPORTED INTERFACE STRENGTHS
The following values for the interface friction between the geosynthetic and soil
components of the liner system represent values reported in the literature and as
reported with laboratory test results:
Gravel (GP)
NW geotextile to Textured HDPE
Textured HDPE to Sand Subgrade
SC0634.VeneerStability5ASB.20121210.F.calc.docx
38
28
33
NA VF Ac<1), 0 psf cohesion
(Attachment C)
Cell 48 CQA Report
(Attachment B)
4th GRI Seminar (Attachment
D)
Geosyntec 0
consultants
Page 3 of 7
Written by: R.Fll'.DD Date: 11/14/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: iZ) 18{1i.-
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
1. NA VF AC (1986) lists typical shear strength values for various compacted soils. To be
conservative, a value of phi= 32 degree was used.
DESIGN CRITERION
For the geosynthetic-soil lined slopes of the Cell SA and SB liner systems, it was desired to
evaluate inclination which would introduce no geosynthetic tension. Subsequently, zero
geosynthetic tension was established as the design criterion for veneer stability of the
geosynthetic-soil lined side slopes.
In consideration of the significance of no tension in the geosynthetic liner system and
consistent with current practice, Geosyntec will adopt a factor of safety (FS) equal to or
greater than 1.3 for veneer stability.
ANALYSIS
According to the Koerner and Soong approach, a soil veneer on a side slope is stable
when the resultant driving force on the passive wedge (Ep) is equal to or less than the
resultant resistant force on the active wedge (EA), The following equations represent
the resultant resistance and active forces, respectively:
EA= FS(WA -N" cosp)-(NA tano+C3 )sinp
sinp(Fs)
Ep = C+ WP tan~
cos (3(FS) -sin~ tan~
The variables will be defined in a subsequent section.
(Attachment A, 2 of 6)
(Attachment A, 2 of 6)
By setting EA=Ep, the resulting equation may be arranged in the form of the quadratic
equation ax2+bx+c=O. Considering FS as the variable of interest, the resulting equation
is as follows:
a(FS)2 + b(FS)+ c = 0 (Attachment A, 2 of 6)
SC0634.VeneerStability5A5B.2012121 O.F.calc.docx
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 4 of 7
Written by: R. FIIDD Date: 11/14/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1i/1g/,i
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
58 Proposal No.: No.:
The factor of safety may be obtained from the solution of the following equation:
-b +.Jb2 -4ac FS =------2a (Attachment A, 2 of 6)
Where the constants are defined, as in Attachment A, 6 of 6:
a= (WA -NA cosJ3)cosl3 (1)
b = -[(WA -NA cosp )sinp tan~+ (NA tan8 + Ca)sinpcosp + sinp(c + WP tan~)]C2)
(3)
In which the variables are indicated on Figure 1 and defined as follows:
C·h C = -(4) (Attachment A, 2 of 6) sinp
C = c (L -__!:_J 11 a , A. sm...,
(5) (Attachment A, 2 of 6)
WA =y·h2(L __ .l __ tanpJ
h smp 2 (6) (Attachment A, 2 of 6)
NA= WA cosJ3 (7) (Attachment A, 2 of 6)
y·h2 w---p -sin2P (8) (Attachment A, 2 of 6)
p = soil slope angle beneath the geomembrane, 18.4° for 3H: 1 V slope
8 = minimum interface friction angle of side slope liner system, 23°
~ = friction angle of gravel, 32°
y = unit weight of the gravel, 135 pcf
C = cohesive force along the failure plane of the passive wedge
c = cohesion of the gravel, 0 psf
SC0634.VeneerStability5A58.20121210.F.calc.docx
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 5 of 7
Written by: R.Fll'.nn Date: 11/14/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1zl~ !1e.
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells 5A & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
5B Proposal No.: No.:
Ca = adhesive force
Ca = adhesion between the sand and the geomembrane, 0 psf
h = thickness of the gravel, 2 feet
L = length of slope measured along the geomembrane beneath gravel, 145.5 feet
NA = effective force normal to the failure plane of the active wedge
WA = total weight of the active wedge
W p = total weight of the passive wedge
Substituting the variables and solving equations (4)-(8), above:
C = c . h = O . 2 =O lbs/ft
sin p sin(26.6) (4)
Ca = ca(L--/:-) = 0(126.5-. 2 ) = 0 lbs/ft sm p sm 18.4 (5)
W = y. h 2(L __ 1 __ tanpJ = 135 . 22 (145.5 _ 1 _ tan18.4) =37 481 lbs/ft
A · h sinp 2 2 sin18.4 2 '
(6)
NA = WA cosj3=37,481 · cos 18.4 = 35,565 lbs/ft (7)
WP = 'Y. h
2
= 901 lbs/ft (8)
sin2~
Next, substituting the solutions to equations (4)-(8) into equations (1)-(3):
a= (37,481 -35,565 · cosl8.4) cos (18.4) = 3,543 lbs/ft
b= -[(37,481 -35,565 · cos 18.4) sin 18.4 tan 32
+ (35,565 tan 23 + 0) sin 18.4 cos 18.4
+ sin 18.4 (0 + 901 tan 32)] = -5,435 lbs/ft
c = (35,565 tan 23 + 0) sin2 18.4 tan 32 = 940 lbs/ft
SC0634.VeneerStabilitySASB.20121210.F.calc.docx
(1)
(2)
(3)
Geo syn.tee 0
consultants
Page 6 of 7
Written by: R.Fl:1:nn Date: 11/14/12 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,i/19( (2.
Client: EF Project: WMM-Cells SA & Project/ SC0634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
Finally, inserting the solutions to (1), (2) and (3) and solving the following equation:
-b + .Jb2 -4ac FS=-------(-5435) + ~(-5435)2 -4 · 3543 · 940 = = 1.33 2a 2-3543
Therefore, the factor of safety for the veneer stability of the drainage aggregate layer on
a sideslope composite liner system is 1.33. This factor of safety satisfies the stability
criterion of 1.3, as previously described.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the proposed side slope riser trench liner system satisfies the
design criteria of no geosynthetic tension development:
Soil Cover Layer
Inclination (H:V)
3.0H:lV
Equipment
Loading
NONE
Tension
FS
1.33
Results of veneer stability analyses presented herein indicate that the interface friction
angle (residual) of 28 degrees with no apparent peak cohesion textured geomembrane to
sand subgrade interface meets the static factor of safety that satisfies that design criteria
of no tension in the geosynthetic liner system.
REFERENCES
Abramson, Lee, Lee, Thomas, Sharma, Sunil, Boyce, Glenn (2002), "Slope Stability
and Stabilization Methods." (Attachment B)
Koerner, R. K. and Soong, T.Y., [1998], "Analysis and Design of Veneer Cover Soils",
Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta,
Georgia, Vol. I, 1998. (Attachment A)
SC0634.VeneerStability5ASB.2012121 O.F.calc.docx
GeosyntecD
consultants
rngc 7 or 7
Wrhtc1t by: R.Flrnn Date: U/14/U Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ,i} ,u/,.z.
Client: EF P1'ojecl': WMM-Cells SA & Ptoject/ SC0.634 Task 02
SB Proposal No.: No.:
NAVFAC (1982), "Foundations and Earth Stn.1ctures, Design Manual -7.2,"
Department of Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, ME\Y 1982
(Atttichmenl C)
Proceedings of the 4lli GRl Seminar on the Topic of Landfill Closures. G lU -Dec t 4,
1990. (Attachment D)
SG0634.Vo11ccrSJabilltySASB.20 I rl.121 O.R.c:alc:d~
! • i ~ i • ! ~
E • ~ § • I • t I -ln-C. g
::: ~ II\,...,
I fir ....
"'" ...
"°"" 1 PREPAFll:OSLMGAAOEAlCEl18AS'E SHAU. CONSIST OF AT LEAST&-INC!-IES OF COMPACTED FlLL OYERLYING SANDSTONE AS
PER SECTIONS 02~ ANO (12220 OF THE TECMNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS
Z DETAILS ARE SHO\MII TQ SCALE INOICATED EXCEF'T FO~ 11,f GEOSYNTHET1CS, WHICH ARE SHOWN AT AN EXAGGERATED SCALE FOR CLARITY SOIL THICKtESSES ARE MINIMUMS
3 WOVEN GEOT!XTILE SHALL ee PROPEX. 20D ST, SKAF'S W 200 OR I\PPROVED EQUAL (VVOV?N SUT FILM AOS • •o fLOW RAT?••
GPMISF,CAAB STRENGTH •200 LBS0PUNCT\JRE • \00 LBS)
.... ,..,
~n&J,,t;(Oo,,,I u.11,...•1aCm.z:ro.J>CrT2n:.l!Cl:lf!tGl•':'f' 11,n -------------, i
E SECTION
07 SUMP SECTION (FLOOR)
SC ... L!.1"•%
F SECTION
07 SUMP SECTION (SLOPE)
SCALE. 1"•1
PERMIT LEVEL DESIGN
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
"""' WO,. ORAINllNE.R
TE:il.TURSl~ l ~BRAAE
r!bUR.6 1
GeosyntecD
COO!.!illants
1-AAHCHOAAtW'IJOICISUTEait ~~.~
eF,_,.
DETAILS & SECTIONS IV
--.... ~, ..... .,IUf(l, ~--~'""co
-----.,,.--
CONSTRUCTION OF CELLS SA AND 58
WHITE MESA MILL
BLANDING, UTAH
w,..,,. ...
Ool'll(l!J ...
... ""°.
ll'f'RM>,91'
GTC
""" "' GTC
Goe
~ .. """'""'
.... ~~1> ...., .. _,.
"' scoeo< '"' _ ..
~~-1L
• The issue of appropriate normal stress is greatly
comp I icatcd if gas pressures are genc~ated in the
underlying waste. These gas pressures wall counteract
some (or all) of the gravitational stress of the cover soil.
The resulting shear strength, and subsequent scabili1y, can
be significantly decreased. See Liu et al ( 1997) for
insight into ~his possibility.
• Shear rates necessary to aHain drained conditions (if this
is the desired situation) are extremely slow, requiring
long testing times.
• Deformations·· necessary to attain residual strengths
require large relative movement of the two respective
halves of the shear box. So as not to travel over the edges
of the opposing shear box. sections, devices should have
the lower shear box significanlly longer than 300 mm.
However, with a lower shear box longer than the upper
traveling section. new surface is constantly being added
10 the shearing plane. This in_fluence is not clear in the
material's response or in the subsequent behavior.
• The anainment or a true residual strength is difficult to
achieve. ASTM D532 I states that one should "run the
test until the applied shear force remains constant with
increasing displacement''. Many commercially available
shear boxes have insurficient travel to reach this
condition.
6µ111/0 ~.
&-re s-)11)0,
c!ecouples from the cover soil materials. producing n
horizon1nl force which must be approprintely :tMlyzecJ. A
section will be devoted to the seismic aspects or coyer soil
slope analysis as well.
All of the above actions are destabilizing forces tencJin2 to
cause slope instability. Fonunately. there .:.re a numbe~ of
actions chat can be taken to increase the st:ibility ef slopes.
Other than geometrically redesi gning the slope with a
natter slope angle or shorter slope length. a desi sin er can
add .s?il mass at the toe or the slope the reby e;honcing
stabillly. Both toe berms and 1apered soil covers are
availabl.e options a~d will be analyzed accordingly.
Ahemattvely. the ~es1gn~r c.an always use geogrids or high
strength geo1ext1les wuhrn lhe cover soil actin!? as
reinforcement materials. This technique is usually refirred
10 as veneer reinforcement. Cases of boch intentional and
nonintentional veneer reinforcement will be presented,
Thus it is seen that a number of strategies innuence slope
m.bility. Each will be described in the sections to follow.
First, the basic gravitational pmblem will be presen1ed
followed by those additional loading si1uations which tend
10 decrease slope stability. Second, various actions thac c::i.n
be taken by the designer to increase slope stability will be
presented. The summary will contrast the FS-values
obtained in the similarly crafted numeric examples.
3 SITUATIONS CAUSING DESTABU.IZATION OF
SLOPES
• The ring torsion shearing apparatus is an alternative
device to detennine 1rue residual strength values, but is
not without its own problems. Some outstanding issues
are the small specimen size, nonunifonn shear races along
the width of the specimen, anisotropic shearing with some This sec1ion 1reats the standard veneer slope stabilny
geosynthetics and no standardized testing protocol. See problem and then superimposes upon II a number of
Stark and Poeppel ( 1994) for infonnation and data using situations, all or which tend to destabilii:e slopes. Included
tlus alt.emative test method. are gravitational, construction equipment, seepage and
seismic forces. Each will be illustrated by a design graph
2.3 Various Types or Loadings and a numeric example.
There are a large variety of ·slope stability problems that 3. l Cover Soil (Gravitational) Forces
may be encountered In analyzing and/or designing final
covers or engineered landfills, abandoned dumps and Figure 3 illustrates the common situation of afi11ire length,
remediation sites as well as leachate collection soils uniformly thick cover soil placed over a liner material at a
covering geomembranes beneath the waste. Perhaps the slope angle .. p ... It includes a passive wedge at the toe and
most common situation is a uniformly thick cover soil on a has a tension crack of 1he crest. The an.ilysis that follows is
gcomembrane placed over the soil subgrade at a given and after Koerner and Hwu (1991), but comparable analyses are
constant slope angle. This "standard" problem will be available from Giroud and Beech ( 1989). Mc Ke Ivey :rnd
analyled in the next section. A variation or this problem r--_D_eu_t_sc_h_(_1_9_9_1_) __ , L_i_n ___ a_n_d_L_c_sl_,c_h_in_s __ k.._.. __ 19 __ 9_7......_an_d'==o=th,...e_r~ __ . __ >/t
will include equipment loads used .during placement of
cover soil on the geomembrane. This problem will be
solved with equipment moving up the slope and then
moving down the slope.
Unfortunately, cover soil slides have occurred and
it is felt that the majority or the slides have been associated
with seepage forces. Indeed, drainage above a
geomembrane (or other barrier material) in the cover soil
cross section must be accommodated to avoid the
possibility or seepage forces. A section will be devoted to
this class of slope stability problems. " Lastly, the possibility of seismic forces exists io
eanhquake prone locations. If an cartl1quakc occurs in the
. vicinity of an engineered landfill, abandoned dump or
rcmcdintion site, the seismic wave travels through the solid'---r-·,g_u_r_t_3-.-L-i~m.::-i-t-eq_u_i_li_b_ri_u_m_fo_rc_e_s_i_n_vo-l-v-ed-in-a-fi-n-it-e-*
1 wa .. ac m·ass reaching the upper surface of the cover. It then length slope analysis for a uniformly thick cover soil.
4 • 1998 Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics
bols used In Fi ure 3 are defined w *' '•
By balancing lhe forces in lhe horizontal direl.'.tion th.
WA = total weight ofthc active wedge following fonnulation results: ' 1:
Wp = tolal weig:,, of the passive wedge
NA = cffecti vc force normal to the failure plane of 1he E p C + Np tan$ t p cos = (11)
active wedge FS
Np = effective force normal to the failure plane of the ~ence the interwedge force acting on the passive wedi?e
passive wedge I~ ~
y = unit weight of the cover soil Ep= C+Wetan$ ~ ( 12) * thickness of the cover soil cos P(FS)-sin P tan o h =
L = length of slope measured along the geomembrane
p = soil slope angle beneath the geomembrane By selling EA = Ep, the resulting equation can be arranged
<I> = friction angle of the cover soil in the form of the quadratic equation ax 2 + bx + c = O which
6 = interface friction angle between cover soil and in our case, using FS-values, i:,:
geomcmbrane
Ca = adhesive force between cover soil of the active a(FS)2 + b(FS) + c = 0 (13) wedge and the geomembrane
Ca = adhesion between cover soil of the active wedge where and the geomembrane
C = cohesive force along the failure plane of the a = (WA -NA cos~) cos p passive wedge
C = cohesion of the cover soil b = -[ (WA -NA cos 13) sin~ tan t> EA = interwedge force acting on lhc active wedge from
+ (NA tan6 + Ca)sinPcosP the passive wedge
Ep = interwedgc force acting on the passive wedge + sin~{c + Wp tantt>)] from the active wedge
FS = factor of safety against cover soil sliding on the c= (NA tano+C3 }sin 2 Pian¢ (14)
eomembrane * The ex.pression for determining the factor of safety can be The resulting FS-'falul! is then obtained from the solution of
derived as follows: the quadratic equation:
Considering the aciive wedge, I 1 .-------------------,Jf FS = -b + v
2
t>
3
2 -4ac
WA= )'h2(L _ -. l __ UUlj3) (3) .
(15)
h sin~ 2 , When the calculated FS-value falls below 1.0, sliding of the
NA= WA cos!} (4) cover soil on the geomembrane is 10 be anticipated. Thus a
(
h ) value of greater than 1.0 must be targeted as being the
Ca = ca L -sin~ (S) \J.1 minimum factor of safety. How much greater thnn 1.0 1he ___ _,_ __ _,_....__ _____________ _,..,. FS-value should be, is a design and/or regulatory issue.
By balanclng the forces in the vertical direction, the The issue of minimum allowable FS-values under different
following fonnulation results: conditions will be assessed at the end of the pnper. In order
E · A ,u N " NA tan 6 + C3 • A A sin I-' == n A -A cos I-' -sin 1-1 FS (6)
Hence the interwedge force acting on the active wedge is:
The passive wedge can be considered in a similar manner:
Wp=L sin2~ (8)
to better illustrate the implication_s of Eqs. 13. 14 and I 5.
typical design curves for various FS-values as a function of
5lope angle and inierface friction angle are given in Figure
4. Note that the curves are developed specifically for the
variables stated in the legend of the figure. Example I
illustrates the use of the c.,urves in whal will be the standnrd
example to which other exiunplcs will be compared.
Example l:
Given a 30 m long slope with a uniformly thick 300 mm
co~er soil at a unit weight of l8 kN/m). The soil has n
friction angle of 30 deg, and iero cehesion, i.e., it is a sand.
The cover soil is placed directly on a geomembrane as
Np = W p + Ep sin~ (9J shown In Figure 3. Direct shear testing has resulted in a
interface friction angle between the cover soil ond
• _ (c)(h) geomembrane of 22 deg. with zero adhesion. What is the
' ... l-_-_s_in_.p.._ _____________ <_10_>_* FS-value al a slope angle of 3(H)•to-l(V). i.e .. 18.4 deg?
*
AA-a.c~A -&J1o
1998 Sixth International Conference on G...-.cvnth,-•tA. c
Solution:
Substituting Eq. 14 into Eq. 15 and solving for the FS,value
results in the following which is seen 10 be in agreement
with the curves of Figure 4.
a..,.14.7kN/m 1
b = -21.3 kN / m FS = I. 25
c=3.5kN/m
50
40
30
20
i 10 u
Slope r:uio (Hor.:Vcn.)
5:1 4:1 3:1 2:1 1:1
~
L = 30 m h = 300 mm
y:> 18 kN/m3 • = 30 deg.
c: .. o kN,m2 c i" o 1<.N1nr
0 +----,.---...-------r---..-----i
0 10 30 50
Slope Angle. J} (deg!
Figure 4. Design curves for stability of unifonn thickness
cohesionless cover soils on linear failure planes for various
global factors-of-safety.
Comment:
In general, this is too low of a value for a final cover soil
!actor-of-safety and a redesign is necessary. While there
are many possible options of changing I.he geometry of the
situation, the example will be revisited later in this section
using toe berms, tapered cover soil thickness and veneer
reinforcement. Furthennore, this general problem will be
used throughout the main body of this paper for comparison
purposes to other cover soil slope stability siluations.
3.2 Tracked Construclion Equipment Forces
The placement of cover soil on a slope with a relatively \ow
shear strength inclusion (like a geomembrane) should
always be from the toe upward to the crest. Figure Sa
shows the recommended method. In so doing, the
gravitational forces of the cover soil and live load of the
construcdon equipment are compacting previously placed
soil and worlcing with an ever present passive wedge and
stable lower-portion beneath the active wedge. While it is
necessary to specify low ground pressure equipment to
place the soil. the reduction of the FS-valuc for this
situation of equipment working up the slope will be seen to
be relatively small.
6 • 1998 Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetic:s
f ,;1,,/.1 (j))
t-t, 1/11/u
For soil placement down tht slope. however, n st.1bil1tv
analysis cannot rely on toe buuressing nno also au~ nam;i.:
str-'!~S should bc included in the calculation . Thi!se
conditions decrease 1he FS,,v:iluc and in some cases 10 0
gre.\t extent. Figure 5b shows this procedure. Unless
absolutely necessary, it is no1 recommended to place co"cr
soil on a slope in this manner. If i1 is necessary. the dcsien
must consider 1he unsupported soil mass and the dyn:1,;k
force of the specific type of construction equipment and its
manner of operation.
(a) Equipment backfilling up slope
(the recommended method)
(b) Equipment backfilling down slope
(method is not recommended)
Figure 5. Construction equipment placing cover soil on
slopes containing geosynthetics.
For the first ca~c: of a bulldozer pushing cover soil up from
the toe of 1• ! slope to the crest. \he anr•ysis uses the free
body dingram of Figure 6a. Th~ analysis u~es a specific
piece. of tracked construction equipment (like n bulldoier
characterized by its ground contact pressure) and dissipates
this force or stress through the cover s.oil thickness 10 the
surface of che geomembra,ne. A Boussinesq annlysis is
used. see Poulos and Davl·s (1974). This resulls in nn
equipment force per unit widlh as follows:
Wc=qwl (16) --"----------------*
where
We = equivalent equipment force per unit width :lt the
geomernbrane interface
q.;.. __ =_W_.b'-/-'(,_2_x_w_x_b._) ----------t
= ac1ua~ weighl of equipment (e.g., a bulldozer)
= lcnglh or equipment !rack
= wid1h of equipment track
..
= influence factor at the geomembrane in1crface
see Figure 7 '-------------,,,------~
(a) Equipmenl moving up slope
(load with no assumed acceleration)
(b) Equipmeni moving down slope
(load plus acceleration or deceleration)
Figure 6 . Addi1ionaf (lo gravita1ional forces) limit
equilibrium forces due to construction equipment moving
on cover soil (see Figure 3 for the gravitational soil force to
which the above forces arc added).
Upon determining the additional equipment force at the
cover soi_l~to-georocmbrane in1crface, the analysis proceeds
as described in Section 3. l for gravitational forces only. In
essence, the equipment moving up the slope adds an
additional term. W c, to the WA -force in Eq. 3. Note,
however, 1hat this in vol vcs the gener.ation of a resisting
force as well. Thus, the net e(fect of increasing the driving
force as well as the resisting force is somewhat neutralized
insof~ as the resulting FS-value is concerned. ll should
also be noted that no accelcration/decclcration forces are
included in this analysis which is somewhat optimistic.
Using these concepts (the same equations used in Section
3. L are used here), typical design cur-vcs for various FS-
values as a fuhction of equivalent ground contact
e9uipment pressures 11nd cover soil thlcknes.ses are given in
Figure 8. Note thilt ltle curves are de.vclopcd specifically
~or the variables stated in the legend. Ex.ample 2a
illustrates the use of the formulation.
1.0
.; 0.9 " ~ ..
.§ o.a .. C: [: 0.7 .0 5 ~ 0.6
0
;; 0.5 l5 ;:;
~ 0.4 " ... C " ::, OJ C: .::
0.2
0
. I
Cover Soil h I
779c~~ef!1b~~c7777) 177) ;)7
J 0.,1.
Note:
The vll.Ciatlon and innucnce of -w"
is sm.i.11 in comparision to "b"
2
Width.of Tuck. b
Thlc:\:nC$$ of Cover Soil. h
3
Figure 7. Values of influence factor. "I". for use in Eq. 16
to dissipate surface force of tracked equipment through the
cover soil to the gcomembrane interface, after Poulos and
Davis (1974).
.... " "' .. > ff!
IAO 1 ----------.=========-i
1.35
1.30
1.25 ...... •',.
~
L 11 30 m p = 18.4 deg,
y=l8kN/m1 o=30dc:g.
& ,. 22 deg. c = 0 kNlm'
c:1= 0 kN/m1 b = 0.6 m
Ii ::9CJOmm
h=600mm
h • 300mm
120-+----..----....----,e---~.-----~----!
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Ground Conl~CI Pressure: (kN/mA2)
Figure 8. Design curves for Slability of different thickness
of cover soil for various values of tracked ground contnct
pressure construction equipment.
1998 Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics • 7 1 A··-' ....... II ..
Example 2a:
Given 30 m long slope with unifonn cover soil of 300 mm
'hickness at a unit weight or 18 kN/ml. The soil has a
riction angle or 30 deg. and zero cohesion. i.e .• it is a sand.
It is placed on the slope using a bulldozer moving from the
toe of the slope up to the crest. The bulldozer has a ground
pressure of 30 kN/m 2 and tracks that are 3.0 m long and 0.6
m wide. The cover soil to geomembrane friction angle is
22 deg. with zero adhesion. What is the FS-value at a slope
_angle of 3(H)-to-l(V), i.e .• 18.4 deg.
Solution:
This problem follows Example I exactly except for the
addition of the bulldozer moving up rhe slope. Using rhe
additional equipment load Eq. 16. substituted into Eqs. 14
and 15 results in the following.
a = 73.1 kN / m l
b=-l04.3kN/m FS=l.24
c=l7.0kN/m
Comment:
While the resuhing FS-value is low, the result is best
assessed by comparing it to Example l, i.e., the same
problem except without the bulldozer. Il is seen that the
FS-vnlue has only decreased from 1.25 to 1.24. Thus, in
general. a low ground contact pressure bulldozer placing
cover soil up 1he slope with negligible acceleration/
deceleration forces does not significantly decrease the
f'actor-of-safcty.
For the second case of a bulldoz.er pushing cover soil down
from the crest of the slope to the toe as shown in Figure Sb,
the analysis uses the force diagram of Figure 6b. While the
weight of the equipment is treated a.s just described, the
lack of a passive wedge along wi~h an additional force due
to acceleration (or deceleration) of the equipment
significantly changes the resulting F'S-values. This analysis
again us~s a specific piece 6f construction equipment
operated in a specific manner. It produces a force parallel
lo the slope equivalent tQ w., (a/g), where W 11 = the weight
of the bulldoicr, a= acceleration of the bulldozer and g =
acc:elcralion due to gravity. lts magnitude is equipment
operator dependent and related 10 both the equipment speed
and time to reach such a speed, see Figure 9. A similar
behavior: will be seen ror deceleration.
The acceleration of the bulldozer, coupled with an influence
factor "I" from Figure 7, results in the dynamic force per
unit width al the cover soil to geomembrane interface. "Fe"·
The relationship is as follows:
j .. :;
\J !
" I!. V.
]
2. ·,; 'i <
" -5
~ M •J :z::
~
~ ,= ...
10
s
6
4
;
2
0 s 10 12. IS @ 25
Anlicipued Speed (km/hr)
SlsM,, @
&-re 'I ,i "'
0. ;'
(I,:,
\"'~ • °'°) ,\
)0 35
Figure 9. Graphic relationship or construction equipment
speed and rise rime to obtain equipment acceleration.
~
a
g
=
=
equivalent equipment (bulldozer) force per unit
width at geomembrane interface, recilll Eq. 16.
soil slope angle beneath geomcmbrnne
acceleration of the bulldozer
acceleration due to gravity
Using these concepts, the new force parallel to the cover
soil surface is dissipated through the thickness of the cover
soil to the interface of the geomembrnne. Again. a
Boussinesq analysis is used, see Poulos and Davis ( 1974)
The expression for determining the FS-value can now be
derived as follows:
Considedng the active wedge, and balancing the forces in
the direction parallel to the slope, the following fonnulntion
results:
where
Ne = effective equipment force normal to the failure
plane of the active wedge
= WecosP (19)
Note that all the other symbols have been previously
defined.
;-The in1erwedge fore~ .tcting on the active wedge can
down be ex.pressed as: \ •
(Fs)[(w A+ we)sinP+Fc]
(a) EA = -~.;.._ ___ ;.__ __ _:.
Fe= We~ (11) FS.
----~'--------------)¥ [{Ne+ NA )tano +Ca]
where
Fe = dynamic force per unit width parallel to the
slope at the geomembrane interface,
8 -1998 Sixth International Conference on Geosyntherics
(20)
FS ----------.-----...,.,.----9* The passive wedge can be treated in a similar manner. Toe
following formulation of the interwedgc force ac1ing on the
pil.Ssive wedge results:
C+Wp•i\n<j)
Ep = -----'----
cos P(FS) -sin P tan cj>
(21)
By setting EA= Ep, the following equation can be arranged
in the form of Eq. 13 in which the "a", "b" and "c" tenns
are as follows:
a=[{wA +We)sinP+Fe)cosP
b=-{((Ne +NA)tan6+CaJcosP
+[(wA +We}sin~+Fc]sinP1an9
+(C + Wp tan<!>)}
... 'J = '?. > Ji t:..
I.-'
I l
L:?
I. I
1.0
,~
1.., JO m p_.. l8..l deg.
y: 11 ~NJm1 o = JO dea
6•2:!.deg. c .. c~,.OL:.N/inl
h ,. JOO mm w "" 3.0 m
b•0.6m
0.9 ...._--.,..---.----:-_.:::"-:----.---I
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
c=[{Ne +NA)tan6+ca]sinjltan<1> (22) -------------=----------~ Ground Contact Pressure (kPa)
Finally. 1he resulting FS-vatue can be obtained using Eq.
15. Using these concepts, typical design curves for various
FS-v;i.lues as a function of equipment ground contacl
pressure and equipment acceleration can be developed, sec
Figure 10. Note that 1hc curves are developed specifically
for 1he variables stated in the legend. Example 2b
illustrates the use or the fom1ula1ion.
Example 2b:
Given a 30 m long slope with unifonn cover soil of 300
mm lhic~ness at a unit weigh1 of 18 kN/ml. The soil has a
f rictlon angle of 30 deg. and zero cohesion, i.e .• it is a sand.
h is plac~d en the slope using a bulldozer moving from the
crest of the slope down 10 the toe. The bulldoz.cr has a
ground co01ac1 pi:essurc of 30 k.N/m2 and tracks that are 3,0
m l<>ng and 0.6 m wide. ·The estimated equipment speed is
20 kmnv and the time to re~ch this speed is 3.0 sc~. The
cover soil to geomembr~ne friction ang.lc is 22 deg. with
-zero adlwsion. What is tnc FS-value a1 a slope angle <>f
3(H)·to· 1 (V). i.e .. 18.4 deg.
Solution:
Using the design cun·es of Figure 10 along with Eqs. 22
substituted into Eq. LS the solution can be obtained:
• From Figure 9 at 20 km/hr and 3.0 sec. the bulldozer's
acceleration is 0.19g.
• From Eq. 22 substituced inio Eq. 15 we obtain
a = 88. 8 kN / m l
b = -t07. 3 kN / m
c=t7.0kN/m
Comment:
FS = 1.03
This problem solution can now be compared to the previous
two examples:
Figure 10. Design curves for stabili1v of different
construction equipment ground contact pm;;ure for variou$
equipment accelerations.
Ex. 1: cover soil alone with no
bulldozer loading FS = 1.25
Ex. 2a: cover sotl plus
bulldozer moving up slope FS = 1.24
Ex.. 2b: cover soil plus
bulldozer meving_down slope FS = 1.03
The inherent danger of a bulldozer moving down the slopl!
is readily apparent. N0te, tha1 the some result comes about
by the bulldozer decclera1ing instead of nccelerotlng. The.
sharp breaking action of lhe b.ulldozcr is arguable l11e more
severe condition due to 1hc c,,>ttrcrnely short times inv9lvetl
when stopping forward motion. Clearly. only in
unavoidable situations should the cover soi I placement
equipment be allowed to work down 1he slope, If it Is
unavoidable, an analysis should be made of the spccHic
stability situa1ion and the construction specifications should
reflect the ex.net conditions made in the design. The
maximum allowable weight and ground cont<\Cl pressure ef
the equipment should be stated nlong with suggc;sted
operator movemen1 of the· cover soil placement opero.tions.
Truck traffic on the slopes can nlso give as high. ·or even
higher, stres.ses and should be avoided unless adequately
designed. Additional detail is given in McKelvey ( 1994).
The issue of access ramps is a unique subset or this
example and one ,yt\lch deserves focused ,mention due to
the high loads and ·dcc"eteratlons that often occur.
3.3 Consideration of Seepage Forces
The previous sections prcsen\cd the general problem of
slope stability analy-Sis of cover soils placed on slopes under
cliff erent conditions. The 1aci1. assumption throughout was
that either. permeable soil or a drainage layer was placed
above the ba1Tit:r layer with adequate now capoci1y to
efficiently remove pcnnca1ing w~ter safely way from the
cross section. The amoum of water to be removed is
obviously a s1te specific situatiQTI, Note that in extremely
1998 Sixth lntemotional Conference on Geosynthetics • 9 • t,
GEOSYNTEC CONSULT ANTS -DENISON MINES -Ce.l/41,
INTERFACE DIRECT SHEAR TESTING (ASTM D 5321)
Upper Shear Box: Concrete sand
SKAPS GE 116 nonwoven geotextile with non heat-treated side down/
GSE 60-mil B/W textured HOPE geomembrane #104152824 with white side up/
Lower Shear Box: Concrete sand
400 500
Shear Strength 0 a R2
350 --3A --3B --3C Parametcrs<2l (deg) (psf)
400 Peak 28 65 0.997
300 LD 18 40 1.000
(;;-c;:-
"' 0 Peak "' 250 i:i..
i:i.. ~300 0 LD ,,_ .. .... --Linear (Peak) ... ~ ... 200 = --Linear (LD) Q .. ~ ... .... ... Cl}
«I ; 200 .. 150 ' -= .. Cl} -= Cl}
100 ~ 100
50
0 0
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 0 100 200 300 400 500
Displacement (in.) Normal stress (psf)
Test Shear Normal Shear GCL Soaking Consolidation Subgrade Soil Cover Soil GCL Shear Stress Failure
No. Box Size Stress Rate Stress Time Stress Time 'Yd ro; OJr 'Yd ro; Olr CO; Cl.Ji-'tp 'tLD Mode
(in. X in. (DSt) (in./min) (psf) (hour) (psf} (hour) (pct) (%) (%) (pct} (%) (%} (%} (%) (l)Sf) (psf)
3A 12 X 12 100 0.2 ------------116 74 (1)
3B 12 X 12 200 0.2 ----------. -177 106 (I)
3C 12 X 12 400 0.2 ------------275 173 (1)
NOTES:
( 1) Shear failure occurred at the interface between the non heat-treated side of geotextile and white side of geomembrane.
(2) The reported total-stress parameters of friction angle and adhesion were determined from a best-fit line drawn through the test data, Caution should be exercised in using these strength
parameters for applications involving normal stresses outside the range of the stresses covered by the test series. The large-displacement (LD) shear strength was calculated using the shear force
measured at the end of the test.
DA TE OF REPORT: sn412010
~ FlGURENO. C-3
SGI 'TSsTING kft"ICSS.. U.C. PROJECT NO. SGil0027
DOCUMENT NO.
FILE NO.
•
• ·• • • •
40 ,.....------~"""."'.:'.':""~-:"'.-:--~~~~------------~---------------------------------------sa.o,r 011A1a.u•1 r1,ra.o,r 101
1 curs IS DES IHArtO AS AHi.£ 01 ANGLE OF SHEARING RESISTANCE
SHEA/UH IIU IS rucr Olt 1'f1Cr/OII vs PLASTICITY INDEX .,u,u. (FOR FINE GRAINED SOILS) 34~~~'::-,-r--~t-"'"""---t~~---L......,..~--,--.....:..~:.:..:.::.:.::.......1
;,•01rA1•ro 1101 r1,rcr,,r sr1rss
;;; FAil.URE lHE&.O'I AIOfE I
; 30 a-::...--'-,..;..,...,.__.....,.;~...--+-__:::.a..,-J.. __ l'UCOIIS OLI OA r I 0# l'ltESS Ult(: ----1-------1
i I w SFA#OAIO ot,~r,01 o,
u z < ... .,, ;;;
~ ~t---+-+----+-~ot--+----+---4---+
C, ! CIC < w ::c "' ~ ~,. • 1 FltU( A #&LE OF
-.tQ T u &.Uts ------~-..
,o•r•o• 01 r,,rcr,,r
s FlfHHH our ,o
•r1ur COHISIOl•(C~
i 10 t--1-1---1---'•,r_r_•_••-"-'r11-"-';..;'..;;0.;.;.•T• --~---1r--~r====~~-d z <
50~---------~20:;--------:4to---_..;.----!6~0--...L.---~s~o-----...l.------l,oo
PL.+.STICITY INDEX
..
ANGLE OF INTERNAL FRICTION
_ VS DEHSIT':
(FOR COARSE GRA\,U-::> ~OILS)
;;;
~as Cl ctL-+J!S,...,_.'e-
w e.
Z 35..,_ __ +-------+--...... ~ g
I-!:! ~ ~
..J ~ 30t----+---~--+-~-':.:.,.-...,i::.=~~-----',,i~.....J~ ;' OITAI lfO FlfOI r11rcr,,r sr1trss IIC w
1-z
's ffa-........... --r-~ Ut--t-------t------+----4----~-...J-c, z ~
DRY UNIT WEIGHT Cy0), PCP
FIGURE 3.7·
FAl&.UII llfl&.O,lS
•"•HI H Fl Clllll'UrlClf
IS 101 COIIIIOILISS
IAFIIIA&.S IITHOUF ,usr,c 11111
41
Correlatlona of Stren1th-Characteri•tics
7.3.17
~i
A~'f.f\tiSfC
C 'I ,l ·
/
~M r'" f1-ocwt),,x..s ~F -m,r 4tt ,ll-z ~,,A,)-,+ia.
~~ -rHIF IC>PIC.. Of u,.,t)FiLL-(;UJ+1t'ta-s
~~ -Ore. J4 1 J1CJo
TABLE6
n,u COEFFICIENT OF FRICTION TBST RESULTS
GEONET VS. CEOSYNTHBTICS INTERFACE FRICTION
NONWOVBN, NEEDLEPUNCHED 20•
NONWOVEN, HEATBONDED 17°
MONOFILAMBNT 14"
MULTIFlLAMENT 20•
SLIT FILM 14"
HDPE -SM00111 16°
HDPB-ROUGH 11•
CSPE 24•
VLDPB 20•
PVC 17°
GEOTEXTILE VS. CBOME.MBRANE INTERFACE FRICTION
CEOTEXTD..B INI'ERFACE HDPE HDPE PVC CSPE Vl.DPE
{ROUCH)
WOVEN, SLIT FILM 18° 17° 23• 25• 22•
WOVEN,MONOFILAMENT 21• 14° zz-23• 22·
WOVEN, MULTIFilAMENT 21• 251 29• 271 22•
NONWOVEN,HEATBONDED 23• 23• 19' 23• 19"
NONWOVEN, 19' ~ 2:1· 21• 20·
NEEDLEPUNCHED
""'.161-
Client:
Energy
Fuels -----
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Project: White Mesa Mill -Cells 5A & 5B
Geosyntec '>
consultants
Project No.: SC0634A
Title of Computations SEEPAGE ANALYSIS OF SLIME DRAIN SYSTEM
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Procedures Checked by:
(peer reviewer)
Computations Checked
by:
Computations
backchecked by:
( originator)
Approved by:
(pm or designate)
Signature
Title Project Professional
Signature
Printed Name
Title Principal
Signature
Printed Name b£lf
Title Principal
Signature
Printed Name ~l
Title Project Professional
Signature
Title Senior Principal Engineer
Approval notes:
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By Checked by
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
1 May 2019
10 May2019
Date
10 May 2019
Date
17 May 2019
Date
29 May 2019
Date
Approval
Geosyntec t>
consultants
This page was left blank.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Geo syn.tee t>
SEEPAGE ANALYSIS OF SLIME DRAIN SYSTEM
WHITE MESA MILL, CELLS SA AND SB
BLANDING, UTAH
1. OBJECTIVE
consultants
The objective of this calculation package is to demonstrate that the proposed slime drain
system is capable of dewatering the tailings within a reasonable time at the Energy Fuels
Resources (USA), Inc.'s (EFR) White Mesa Mill (WMM) Cells 5A and 58 in Blanding,
Utah (Site).
A finite element (FE) seepage analysis of a representative cross section of the cells was
performed to evaluate the performance of the slime drain system regarding its capability
to dewater the tailings. Results of this analysis will be used to support design
recommendations regarding slime drain spacing, dimensions, and material properties.
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND
This project involves the construction of two 40-acre (solution surface area), double lined
tailing cells (Cells 5A and 58) that are approximately 46-ft deep at their deepest point
(Cell 5B) and 28-ft deep at the shallowest point with an average depth of 37 ft. The liquid
level in the cells will be kept to a minimum of 3 ft below the top of the perimeter berm.
Therefore, the maximum depth ofliquid in the cells will be 43 ft at the start of dewatering
with an average and minimum depth ofliquid of 34 and 25 ft, respectively.
The cells will be filled with -28 mesh (U.S. No. 30 sieve) tailings, largely consisting of
fine sands and silts, with some clay. The tailings will be placed within the cells in a slurry
form under the surface of the free liquid contained within the cells.
Geosyntec understands that EFR is interested in limiting the liquid head at the centerline
between the drains to less than one foot within a reasonable time after placement of
tailings in the cells and starting the dewatering process. To achieve this goal, Geosyntec
has proposed to install a series of strip geocomposite drains on top of the geomembrane
liner system within the cells. The strip geocomposite consists of a geotextile wrapped
high-density polyethylene (HDPE) core, I-inch thick, 12-inch wide, with a transmissivity
of 29 gal/min/ft. The strip geocomposites will be placed on a 40-ft spacing and beneath
3-inch thick, 18-inch wide sand layer (sand filled bags or woven geotextile wrapped
around the sand layer). The sand will have a minimum saturated hydraulic conductivity
of 1x10-4 centimeters per second ( cm/s) and will be wrapped in a woven geotextile. The
sand layer is utilized to increase the drainable surface area of the drains and provide
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL Page 1 of6
Geosyntec •>
consultants
additional filter protection. The strip geocomposites are connected to 4-inch diameter
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) header pipes which drain liquid to the sump.
A typical detail of the slime drain system is illustrated in Figure 1. The following sections
demonstrate that the proposed slime drain system would be able to dewater the tailings
contained in Cells 5A and 5B within a reasonable time.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Seepage Analysis
Dewatering of tailings through the slime drain system was evaluated by performing
seepage analysis using the computer program SEEP/W [GEO-SLOPE, 2018]. SEEP/W
is a finite element (FE) program that can mathematically simulate the physical process of
water flow through various soil layers. The seepage analysis was performed under
transient (time dependent) conditions to simulate the dewatering process.
3.2 Model Description
A representative cross section of the cells, consisting of two slimes drain collectors, was
developed in SEEP/W. The 12-inch wide slimes drain collectors were placed with a 40-
ft center-to-center spacing. The left and right boundaries of the model were extended
20 ft (i.e., half of the drain spacing) from the centerline of the drains representing zero-
flow conditions due to the symmetric nature of the flow. An average depth of saturated
tailings (i.e., 34 ft) was considered. As a result, the total model height and width are
approximately 34 ft and 80 ft, respectively.
The bottom of the model was sloped at 1 percent towards the drains1. A 3-inch thick sand
layer was modeled immediately above the strip geocomposite and extended 9 inches to
either sides from the centerline of the drain to simulate the 3-inch thick, 18-inch wide
sand bag. The geometry of the model and the FE mesh are shown in Figure 2. The
seepage analysis was performed under transient conditions until the tailings have been
dewatered. For the purpose of this design, the tailings have been reasonably dewatered
when the maximum liquid head on the liner has dropped to less than one foot above the
liner system.
1 Model considers I% cross slope into slimes drain collectors. The most downgradient slope was modeled
to conservatively flow back to the slimes drain collector to prevent unnecessary liquid build-up on the
bottom right comer of the model wherein a zero-flow boundary condition was assumed (as shown in
Figure 2). This downgradient slope will actually flow into the next slimes drain collector (i.e., liquid flow
is not impeded on the bottom right comer of the model).
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL Page 2 of6
Geosyntec •>
consultants
3.3 Material Properties
As indicated in Section 2, the tailings will be placed within the cells in a slurry form. In
April 2015, a report on the characterization of tailings placed in Cells 2 and 3 (hereafter
referred to as the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report) at WMM was prepared [MWH,
2015]. The tailings analyzed in the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report were processed
at the mill and were placed in Cells 2 and 3 in a similar manner anticipated in Cells 5A
and 5B. As a result, the analysis performed and resulting tailings properties identified in
the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report are representative of tailings to be placed in
Cells 5A and 5B [MWH, 2015].
Table 1 summarizes the estimated saturated hydraulic conductivities of the tailings. As
shown, the weighted average of the horizontal and vertical saturated hydraulic
conductivities are approximately 1x10-5 cm/s and 4x 1 o·6 cm/s, respectively. It should be
noted that among the samples tested for saturated hydraulic conductivity testing, the
2W3 (7 .O' -7 .8') sample, which was classified as a sand-slime tailing, has a vertical
saturated hydraulic conductivity (equal to 3.3xI0·6 cm/s) that is comparable to the
estimated vertical saturated hydraulic conductivity for the tailings.
In order to model the flow of water during tailings dewatering under saturated and
unsaturated conditions, the water retention curve and the unsaturated hydraulic
conductivity function for the tailings are a necessary input to the seepage model. The
water retention curve mathematically expresses the relationship between the volumetric
water content of the tailings and the soil suction. The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
function describes the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the tailings for the entire
range of soil suction.
A built-in pedotransfer function in SEEP/W was used to estimate the water retention
curve of the tailings based on the porosity, liquid limit, and particle size distribution curve
of the tailings. The pedotransfer function was based on the method proposed by
Kovacs [1981] which was modified to better represent materials such as tailings from
hard-rock mines and clay type soils [GEO-SLOPE, 2018]. The porosity of the tailings
was estimated to be approximately 0.45 [MWH, 2016] and the weighted average of the
liquid limit of the tailings was estimated to be approximately 32 percent (see Table 2).
SEEP/W utilizes the diameter for which 60 percent of the particles are finer (i.e., D6o) and
the diameter for which only 10 percent of the particles are finer (i.e., D10), both of which
are obtained from the particle size distribution curve. Figure 3 shows the compiled
particle size distribution curves of the tailings from the 2015 Tailings Characterization
Report [MWH, 2015]. Based on Figure 3 and the particle size distribution curve for the
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL Page 3 of6
Geosyntec •>
consultants
2W3 (7.0'-7.8') sample, a D6o of 0.1 millimeters (mm) and a D10 of 0.001 mm were
considered to be representative of the tailings.
Figure 4(a) shows the SEEP/W-estimated water retention curve of the tailings. The figure
also shows the water retention curve of sand. A typical water retention curve of sand,
available in SEEP/W, was assumed for the sand bags. Using the water retention curves
of the tailings and sand, the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity for a given soil suction
was estimated as a fraction of the saturated hydraulic conductivity using the built-in
estimating function in SEEP/W based on the method proposed by Fredlund et al. [1994].
Figure 4(b) shows the SEEP/W-estimated unsaturated hydraulic conductivity functions
for the tailings and sand.
Table 3 summarizes the hydraulic properties of the materials used in SEEP/W. The
tailings and sand were both modeled in SEEP/W assuming a saturated/unsaturated
material model.
3.4 Initial and Boundary Conditions
An initial water table at the top of the tailings (i.e., at elevation 34 ft) was assumed as the
initial condition to simulate the start of dewatering of tailings. A zero-flow boundary
condition was applied to the left and right boundaries of the FE model (see Figure 2).
The bottom of the FE model was defined as zero-flow boundary conditions except where
the slimes drains were located. A seepage face boundary condition was applied along the
slime drains. A seepage face boundary condition in SEEP/W simulates a zero pressure
head condition during saturated conditions and a no flow condition during unsaturated
conditions within the boundary [GEO-SLOPE, 2018].
4. SEEP AGE ANALYSIS RESULTS
Appendix A provides the seepage analysis results for a representative cross section of the
cells with two slimes drain collectors. Transient seepage analysis was performed to
simulate the dewatering of tailings. The water pressure head distribution across the FE
model was plotted at the initial stage (immediately after filling the cells) and at select
time periods to show the subsequent drop of the liquid level within the cell as a result of
the dewatering process.
A summary of the seepage analysis results is presented in Figure 5 wherein the simulated
liquid heads on the liner during tailings dewatering were plotted. The corresponding
maximum liquid head on the liner at select time periods is presented in Table 4. The
results indicate that on the average it would take approximately 5 years to dewater the
tailings such that the maximum liquid head on the liner has dropped to less than one foot.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL Page 4 of6
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Furthermore, the total liquid flux from the slime drains that were simulated in SEEP/W
were used to estimate the total drainage collected from each cell and to verify that the
header pipes can adequately handle the drained liquid to the sump.
5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A representative cross section of the cells with the proposed slime drain system was
modeled using the FE computer program SEEP/W to evaluate its capability to dewater
the tailings within a reasonable time. The proposed slime drain system consisted of a
series of 12-inch wide strip geocomposites on top of the geomembrane liner system
within the cells. The strip geocomposites were placed on a 40-ft spacing and overlain by
18-inch wide, 3-inch thick sand bags. The sand bag consisted of sand with a minimum
saturated hydraulic conductivity of 1x10-4 cm/s wrapped in a woven geotextile. The strip
geocomposites were connected to 4-inch diameter PVC header pipes to convey liquid to
the sump.
The results of the seepage analysis demonstrated that the proposed slime drain system
would be able to dewater the tailings within a reasonable time; approximately 5 years for
the maximum liquid head on the liner to drop to less than one foot.
6. REFERENCES
Fredlund, D. G., Xing, A., and Huang, S. 1994. "Predicting the Permeability Function for
Unsaturated Soils Using the Soil-water Characteristic Curve", Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 31 ( 4): 533-546.
GEO-SLOPE, 2018. "Seepage Modeling with SEEP/W -An Engineering Methodology",
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd., July 2012 Edition.
Kovacs, G. 1981. "Seepage Hydraulics", Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, Netherlands.
MWH, 2015. "Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc., White Mesa Mill, Tailings Data
Analysis Report", MWH Americas, Inc., April 2015.
MWH, 2016. "Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc., White Mesa Mill, Updated Tailings
Cover Design Report-Appendix C", MWH Americas, Inc., April 2016.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL Page 5 of6
TABLES
Table 1 -Estimated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Tailings
Table 2 -Estimated Liquid Limit of Tailings
Table 3 -Material Hydraulic Properties
Table 4 -Summary of Seepage Analysis Results
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Proposed Slime Drain System
Figure 2 -Model Geometry and Finite Element Mesh
Figure 3 -Particle Size Distribution Curves of Tailings
Geosyntec •>
consultants
Figure 4 -Water Retention Curves and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity Functions
Figure 5 -Simulated Liquid Heads on the Liner During Tailings Dewatering
APPENDICES
Appendix A -Seepage Analysis Results
Appendix B-Excerpts from MWH [2015] and MWH [2016]
SC0634A _ EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL Page 6 of6
Geosyntec t>
consultants
TABLES
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Table 1. Estimated Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity of Tailings
Tailings Percentage of Horizontal Hydraulic Vertical Hydraulic
Type Material Conductivity (cm/s) Conductivity (cm/s)
Sand <1) 10% 4.60E-05 3.lOE-05
Sand-Slime (l) 65% 6.40E-06 9.00E-07
Slime (l) 25% 6.60E-06 l.30E-06
Weighted Average 1.04E-05 4.0lE-06
Note:
(1) Data obtained from the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report [MWH, 2015). Excerpts from
the report are included in Appendix B.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Table 2. Estimated Liquid Limit of Tailings
Tailings Percentage of Liquid Limit
Type Material (%)
Sand <1) 10% 0
Sand-Slime <2) 65% 34
Slime <2) 25% 41
Weighted Average 32
Notes:
(1) Not tested; Assumes nonplastic with zero liquid limit.
(2) Data obtained from the 2015 Tailings Characterization Report
[MWH, 2015]. Excerpts from the report are included in
Appendix B.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Geosyntec •>
consultants
Table 3. Material Hydraulic Properties
Horizontal Hydraulic Anisotropy (Vertical to Material Water Retention Material Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity, kx (cm/s) Model Curve <2> Conductivity Ratio, ky/kx)
Tailings l.04E-05 0.39 Saturated/ Estimated Using Built-in
Unsaturated Pedotransfer Function
Sand (I) l.OOE-04 1.0 Saturated/ Sample Function,
Unsaturated Sand
Notes:
(I) Assumed material for the sand bag.
(2) The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function was estimated from the water retention curve using the built-in
estimating function in SEEP/W utilizing geotechnical index properties from MWH [2015] and MWH [2016].
Excerpts from the reports are included in Appendix B.
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_ Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Table 4. Summary of Seepage Analysis Results
Time Maximum Liquid Head
(Years) on the Liner
(ft)
0 (Initial Conditions) 34
1 6.4
2 3.9
3 2.4
4 1.5
5 0.9
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Geosyntec •>
consultants
FIGURES
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Geosyntec •>
consultants
'i. 'i.
i--------~\ 40' ----------------i
3"
r--c:. 1"
18"
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
STRIP
GEOCOMPOSITE
Figure 1. Proposed Slime Drain System
SANDBAG
WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
45
40
35
30
25
C:
0 20 :.:.
I I
m > Q) 15 w
10
5
->....I.
0
-5
-10
-25 -20
Geo syn.tee t>
consultants
Initial Water Level at El. 34 ft l __ _
I IT f; ;--JT I! 'I I I I l_'____LU_ ! !
I j I j : 1 ' ; ' 1 ' : 1 ' 1 : : ' ' ' : : . ! ! ! : • , I I I ' I ' f I l : I ' ] ' , ' i I r : I ! 1 I I · 1 1 · 1 I 1 ! 1;
~LLJ_j_J ! i I i I i i l I 1 I ; I I ! ; I I l t I . -l '±±±£ t::=1:. I '::J EFFFA I • I • • .•.•. , __ ]_j _l_____.'.__L____i______l_ __ L_.'_ _; ;_ j .! I L I .. I [ .:. [ I I l l ' I • I : I ~-J __ !_L! --~f-t:_L:_~_...1..._!_j_J_L_.!..._ j_ •
, I . ' i . a~T' ,-1 i±±lLLUJ±rj , , , . i.....;.J_LLL.LLw • , 1 1 1 I , t, r 1 1 i 11:11t11
I ' I -:,-f!_LI__L"r
1 ~ 1t
1:Itri' ,t.t
i
-15 -10
-1\ 1
12-in Simes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-in Sand Bags
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance
Figure 2. Model Geometry and Finite Element Mesh
! l +:-'
,,-a-.j...l....L ·l~
55 60
Zero Row
65
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
I
l'n Ii I
I
Geosyntec t>
consultants
---11" r , ,. r r »r as .-.. ... "31 MO -•tOD -,oo , • -;.,__~-~ ---I I • --------
00
00
70
ID
..
---_.,... ---~---"-~-•--
----+-----'-------,o
~ 120
f »
..
,\-\--\t-. ..
... f-------------------........ ----t·l--+-h\-"----" ..
~1----.......;'------+---........ --_..:.... ___ ..._ _____________ _ 70
:zo ~-----,.------!1----,---~---------,--------------~: ~·
,0
L . ~
-~ ,0 ' ~ w ~
Ploll"hlll SIZE (lalll
BOCI.DERS I ~ ~ ~ E!E lc§Msii I!!!!:!: ME®M I mE SLT I CLAY I
Figure 3. Particle Size Distribution Curves of Tailings (adapted from [MWH, 2015])
I t
I
§
l
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
0. .. .. .. c .Q 0.4+ -+...,t .. C .. E :§.
c ·-1 ~ C I 8
; I.,
:ii: o.-
u :s .. E :, 0.1 o >
0 0:1
1
1 i I:
Sa~~ :,:[
I .i!!
10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000
Soil Suction (psf)
Geosyntec t>
consultants
1.0e-__ f ·~ ._ 'ii: · ··:!.:;::., · ·· ,I
~ ~
>-~ 1.0e-
"' .g 1.0e-10 l ;-·i:;; .....
C
8
.!!
:i ~ ,,
>-:I:
j
5 .!>I 0 :I:
H-+++1111 10
Soil Suction (psf)
Figure 4. Water Retention Curves and Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity Functions
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
7
-+~ ~ . -"C 5 m Q) :c
Q) 4 '-:::::J
I
"' "' Q)
'-3 a..
'-Q) -m 2+··.........____ s
1 1--· .. -~
0
-20 -10 0
·----..............
""-\
,.-o,..,t":.._. it ,,_.,,--. ...,., \ _,,.r ---..._
/ ..... \
...
"'\ . \_ ··-·-·-·"-........ \ \ ,.-•.-. ... __.~
·----~-..... ____ --~ \~
..... , \•i . ·~ --·········-··-"',1 ~-·········<
Geosyntec t>
consultants
_ .. ,
I
....
.... ,,..~· .. '(\.•..-· .. ~~
. .... -....
"·" •l'
__......,-····-···-~ / -·
,,/
.,,,.,,.,.-,-" ~//"".__. ...
(. . .-~·•r
..... "'"'"•
· 1 yrs
2 yrs
3 yrs
4 yrs
5 yrs
10 20 30 40 50 60
Distance (ft)
Figure 5. Simulated Liquid Heads on the Liner During Tailings Dewatering
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Appendix A
Seepage Analysis Results
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
Geosyntec t>
consultants
C 0 :.::; m > Q)
w
SC0634A White Mesa Mill -Cells SA & SB
Seepage Analysis of Slime Drain System
May 2019
Time: Year O (Initial Conditions)
45
40
35
30 '
25 Ta:•: ... -----···· ... -
20
15
10
5 '
---0 ----~ -----
Geosyntec D
consultants
. ~ ~-
... -----------
-5 12-in Slimes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-in Sand Bags
-10 I I
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Distance FigureA.1
Water Pressure Head
0 0-2ft
CJ 2-4ft
0 4-6ft
0 6-8ft
G]8-10ft
0 10-12ft
13 12-14ft
0 14-16ft
0 16-18ft
D 18 -20 ft
1!!!1 20 -22 ft
D 22-24 ft
D 24 -26 ft
1!i!1 26 -28 ft
D 28 -30 ft
D 30-32 ft
32-34ft
65
C:
0 :;:; cu > ~ w
SC0634A White Mesa Mill -Cells SA & 58
Seepage Analysis of Slime Drain System
May 2019
Time:Year1
45
40
35
30
25 Tailing Material
20
15
10
5
0
Geosyntec t>
consultants
-5
-10
12-in Slimes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-in Sand Bags
I
Water Pressure Head
0 0-2ft
0 2-4ft
0 4-6ft
0 6-Bft
0 8-10ft
CJ 10-12ft
0 12-14ft
D 14-16ft
0 16-18ft
0 18-20ft
0 20-22 ft
D 22-24 ft
D 24-26 ft
1!!1 26-28ft
0 28-30 ft
D 30 -32 ft
32-34ft
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance FigureA.2
C
0 -co > Q)
UJ
SC0634A White Mesa Mill -Cells 5A & 58
Seepage Analysis of Slime Drain System
May 2019
Time: Year2
45
40
35
30
25 Tailing Material
20
15
10
5
0
Geosyntec D
consultants
-5
-10
12-in Slimes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-in Sand Bags
j
Water Pressure Head
O 0-2ft
0 2-4ft
0 4-6ft
0 6-8ft
l::]8-10ft
D 10-12ft
D 12-14ft
1]14-16ft
D 16-18ft
D 18 -20 ft
1!!1 20 -22 ft
D 22 -24 ft
D 24-26 ft
1!!!)26-28ft
Q 28-30 ft
D 30-32 ft
32-34ft
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance FigureA.3
C:
0 ..... ca > <V
UJ
SC0634A White Mesa Mill -Cells SA & 58
Seepage Analysis of Slime Drain System
May 2019
Time: Year3
45
40
35
30
25 Tailing Material
20
15
10
5
0
Geosyntec C>
consultants
-5 12-in Slimes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-in Sand Bags
Water Pressure Head
D 0-2ft
OJ 2 -4ft
0 4-6ft
0 6 -8ft
(J 8-10ft
g 10-12ft
[J 12-14ft
Ql 14-16ft
0 16-18ft
0 18 -20 ft
~ 20-22 ft
0 22-24 ft
D 24-26 ft
E:1 26 -28 ft
D 28 -30 ft
E}30-32ft
32-34ft
-10 .___,___..._ _ _.___..J...__....L-_ _L__-'--_ _....__-'-_ _._ _ __._ _ _L _ ___,_ _ __,___---L. _ _..!. _ ____. _ _,
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance FigureA.4
C
0 ; cu > Q)
w
SC0634A White Mesa Mill -Cells SA & 58
Seepage Analysis of Slime Drain System
May 2019
Time: Year4
45
40
35
30 ..
25 Tailing Material
20
15
10
5 ~
_L 0 ,-
Geosyntec t>
consultants
.~ ... --,
-5 12-in Slimes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-in Sand Bags
Water Pressure Head
(J 0-2ft
0 2-4ft
0 4-6ft
0 6-8ft
Q 8-10ft
[I 10 -12 ft
[]12-14ft
&;11 14-16ft
0 16 -18ft
0 18-20ft
!!!I 20 -22 ft
D 22 -24 ft
D 24-26 ft
1!!!1 26 -28 ft
0 28-30 ft
D 30-32 ft
g 32-34ft
-10 '---~-...._-~-~--'--~-~'---~-....___.....__~-~--'--~-~'---~-....____.
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Distance FigureA.5
C: 0 -ca > ~ w
SC0634A White Mesa Mill -Cells SA & 58
Seepage Analysis of Slime Drain System
May 2019
Time: Years
45
40
35
30
25 Tailing Material
20 ~
15 ~
10
5 ..
0 ,-
Geosyntec t>
consultants
--,
-5 12-in Slimes Drains Enclosed in 18-in by 3-in Sand Bags
Water Pressure Head
Q 0-2ft
0 2-4fl
1!ii 4-6ft
D 6-8ft
Q 8-10fl
D 10-12fl
[] 12 -14 ft
C!)14-16fl
C]16-18ft
0 18-20ft
ti! 20-22 ft
D 22-24 ft
D 24-26 fl
0 26 -28 ft
1!!1 28 -30 fl
D 30 -32 ft
'1 32 -34 ft
_10 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Distance
55 60 65
FigureA.6
Geosyntec•>
consultants
Appendix B
Excerpts from MWH [2015] and MWH [2016]
SC0634A_EF White Mesa Mill_Tailings Dewatering FINAL
«I}) MWH .
MWH [2015]
Tailings Data Analysis Report
except for the sample with 29% passing the No. 200 sieve which falls on the sand-slime/slime
cutoff line. The samples classified as sand-slime tailings based on percent fines fall within both
the sand-slime and slime tailings categories on the graph. The samples classified as slime
tailings based on percent fines fall within the slime tailings category on the graph. Correlation
with the laboratory results for percent fines and the Larson and Mitchell (1986) graph indicate
that better site-specific correlation would be obtained if the material definitions based on percent
fines were modified and the curves adjusted so that the sand and sand-slime tailings are
combined and the sand-slime/slime cutoff is shifted. This adjustment is consistent with ASTM
05778 for CPT of soils, which recommends the collection of samples from adjacent borings to
CPT soundings be used to provide site specific correlations to CPT data. It is understood that
there should be a division between the sand and sand-slime tailings, however the selection of a
division line is not clear based on comparison of laboratory testing data with the CPT test
results. To address DRC's concern with combining the sand and sand-slime tailings within one
division on Figure E.1-2 (DRC, 2015), the sand/sand-slime division line from Larson and
Mitchell (1986) has been added to this figure and associated figures. It will be considered for
future technical analyses that this division is not correlated to the site-specific laboratory testing
results for the sand tailings and conservative adjustment of parameters to address uncertainty
will be evaluated. The recommended modifications to the classifications for the White Mesa
tailings are listed below and Figure E.1-2 shows the data points classified using this criteria on
the adjusted graph.
• Sand Tailings (0 to 30 percent passing the No. 200 sieve)
• Sand-Slime Tailings (30 to 60 percent passing the No. 200 sieve)
• Slime Tailings (60 to 100 percent passing the No. 200 sieve)
Figure E.1-3 and Figure E.1-4 show all the CPT data (cone resistance versus friction ratio) for
Cells 2 and 3, respectively, along with the adjusted graph for denotin_g the division between
sand, sand-slime, and sl ime tailings. Using these figu res, approximately 10, 65, and 25 percent
of the tailings are categorized as sand, sand-slime, and slime tailings respectively, fo r Cells 2
and 3. . Figure E.1-5 through Figure E.1 -20 show the CPT data (cone resistance versus
friction ratio) for each CPT location and the recommended sand, sand-slime, and slime tailings
division. These figures indicate ranges of approximately Oto 30 percent, 35 to 80 percent, and
5 to 60 percent of sand, sand-slime, and slime tailings, respectively, from CPT soundings in
Cells 2 and 3 ..
Using the tailings classification provided in Figure E.1-2, the tailings profiles were developed for
each CPT location and are shown in Figures E.1-21 through Figure E.1-37. A layer of interim
cover is shown at the top of each profile. The CPT soundings show evidence of this interim
cover, which has higher tip resistance than the underlying tailings. A minimum of 3 feet of
interim cover has already been placed in covered areas and this is consistent with the estimated
thickness shown on the profiles. Profiles showing the tailings layers classified based on
laboratory testing are shown for locations where direct push sampling was conducted. The
tailings samples were classified according to the percent passing the No. 200 sieve as sand
tailings (0 to 30 percent fines), sand-slime tailings (30 to 60 percent fines), and slimes (60 to
100 percent fines).
Figure 4-3 through Figure 4-5 show sections through Cells 2 and 3 and include tailings profiles
developed from the CPT results. Review of these figures, as well as the boring logs and
laboratory results indicate there is significant interbedding and minimal segregation of tailings
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. MWH Americas, Inc.
15 April 2015
(B}) MWH .
MWH [2015]
Tailings Data Analysis Report
Table 4-4 Summar of Laborator Measured Vertical H draulic Conductivity
I T~:;:· I
Sand-Slime
Slime
d
9.0E-07
1.6E-07 -3.3E-06)
1.3E-06
(1.7E-07 -9.8E-06)
(cm/s) I
Note: Geometric mean with range of values shown in parentheses.
cm/s = centimeters per second
The horizontal hydraulic conductivities of the sand-slime and slime tailings were estimated using
CPT data and the relationship provided in Robertson and Cabal (2012), based on CPT soil
behavior. The results are shown in Table 4-5 for the depths where vertical hydraulic
conductivities were measured. The estimated geometric mean horizontal hydraulic
conductivities for the sand-slime and slime tailings are similar, with values of 6.4 x 10-5 and 6.6 x
10-5 cm/s, respectively. The calculated anisotropy ratio (hydraulic conductivity to vertical
hydraulic conductivity) of the sand-slime and slime tailings is about 3 and 5, respectively,
excluding the result of 47 for CPT-2W6-S(3).
Table 4-5 Summa
Tailings Type Location and Depth
CPT-2W2 at 7.5 -8'
Sand-Slime CPT-2W3 at 7 -7.8'
CPT-2W6-S(3) at 14.5 -15'
Geometric mean
Slime CPT-2W6-S(2) at 12.3 -12.8'
CPT-3-6N at 5.3 -5.8'
Geometric mean
emfs = centimeters per second
3.8E-06 1.4E-06
9.0E-06 3.3E-06
7.6E-06 1.6E-07
6.4E-06 9.0E-07
3.2E-06 1.7E-07
1.3E-07 9.8E-06
6.6E-06 1.3E-06
Calculated Hydraulic
Conductivity
Anisotropy Ratio
(horizontal/vertical)
3
3
47
7
19
5
The sand tailings samples did not have sufficient cohesion to be used for specimens for
hydraulic conductivity testing. Hydraulic conductivity was estimated using 1) CPT data and the
relationship shown in Robertson and Cabal (2012), and 2) measured grain-size analyses and
the empirical relationships from Fair-Hatch and Harlman (McWhorter and Sunada, 1977). The
results are shown in Table 4-6. Assuming a horizontal to vertical conductivity ratio of
approximately 1, the results indicate an isotropic hydraulic conductivity of approximately 3 x 10-5
to 5 x 10-5 cm/s for the sand tailings.
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. MWH Americas, Inc.
20 April 2015
MWH [2015]
®)MWH. Tailings Data Analysis Report
Table 4-6
Sample
Depth % Passing Tailings Sampling Interval No. 200 Cell Location (ft) Sieve
Cell 2 CPT-2E1 17-17.4' 29.2 1.5.E-05 5.6E-06
6.5 -7 13.0 4.9.E-05 3.3E-04
Cell 3 CPT-3-4N 8.5 -9 19.6 2.5.E-05 8.5E-05
11 -11.5 11.2 4.8.E-05 2.9E-05
Geometric mean 3.1E-05 4.6E-05
cm/s = centimeters per second
The permeability test results for the White Mesa sand, sand-slime, and slime tailings are
consistent with other published uranium tailings test results (Keshian and Rager, 1986). The
specific hydraulic conductivity values to use for analyses will be dependent upon the type of
analyses and how the tailings will be modeled.
4.5 Consolidation Properties
Results of laboratory consolidation testing on samples obtained from the direct push sampling
were used to estimate consolidation parameters including the compression index (Cc) and the
vertical coefficient of consolidation (cv). Cc provides an indication of the amount of compression
that can be expected under a change in loading, with higher values of Cc indicating greater
compression and larger settlements. The parameter Cv provides an indication of the
consolidation rate with vertical pore water pressure dissipation, with higher Cv values indicating
more rapid consolidation. Consolidation tests were performed on sand-slime and slime tailings
samples. The sand tailings samples did not have sufficient cohesion to be used for
consolidation testing. The consolidation testing results for the samples tested were presented in
Table 3-2 and are summarized below in Table 4-7. The results for consolidation parameters
are similar for sand-slime and slime tailings, with an average Cc value of approximately 0.3 and
an average Cv value of approximately 0.001 to 0.002 cm2/s. The measured Cc and Cv values for
the sand-slime and slime tailings samples are consistent with published test results for other
uranium tailings samples (Keshian and Rager, 1986).
Table 4-7 Su mmary o f L b a oratory M easure dC l"d f n Parameters onso1 a 10
Tailings Cc Cv (cm2/s) Type
0.32 0.001
Sand-Slime (0.11 -0.66) (0 .0005 -0.002)
0.28 0.002
Slime (0.27 -0.28) (0.0005 -0.003)
.L -cm /s -square centimeters per second
As noted in Section 3.0, the consolidation test results are considered non-standard since the
diameters of the samples tested were smaller than the minimum diameter recommended per
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. MWH Americas, Inc.
21 April 2015
(Bl) MWH,
MWH [2015]
Tailings Data Analysis Report
ble 3-2 S f Lab T R l.,_a
Tailin5is % Finer Natural In-Situ Dry Atterberg Limits (%t Hydraulic Consolidation Properties'
than No. Water Density (pcf) • Specific Conductivity Type 200 Sieve Content(%) PL Pl (cm/s) Cc Cv9 (cm2/s) Gravity
18 27 97 Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested Not Tested Sand (11 .2 -29.2) (25.5 -29.2) (93.5 -98.3)
47 35 88 34 23 10 2.80 9.0E-07e 0.32 0.001
Sand-, (34.2 -58.1) (13.2 -71 .6) (56.2 -114.4) (26-54) (19-30) (6 -24) (2.77 -2.84) (1.6E-07 -3.3E-06) (0.11 -0.66) (0.0005-
S1ime1 0.002)
71 41 78 41 26 16 2.86d 1.3E-06d,e 0.28d 0.002a
'Slime, (60.2 -97.0) (29.3 -63.8) (61 .0 -94.6) (31 -68) (23 -36) (7 -32) (2.85 -2.86) (1.7E-07 -9.8E-06) (0.27 -0.28) (0.0005-
0.003)
Notes:
a. Average laboratory values shown in table with ranges shown in parentheses
b. Sand tailings (0 -30% fines); Sand-slime tailings (30 -60% fines); Slime tailings (60 -100% fines) (adjusted from ranges defined in Larson and
Mitchell, 1986)
c. NP= non-plastic; LL= liquid limit(%); PL= plastic limit(%); Pl= plasticity index(%)
d. Two samples tested.
e. Geometric mean
f. Cc= compression index; Cv = coefficient of consolidation
g. Cv value estimated from linear portion of consolidation curve
cm/s = cubic meterscentimeters per second, cm2/s = square centimeters per second, pct= pounds per cubic foot
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. MWH Americas, Inc.
13 April 2015
FIGURE D-1 GRADATION TEST RESULTS-CELL 2 AND CELL 3 TAILINGS SAMPLES
I-:c CJ iii ~ >-m
0:: w z
ii:
I-z w 0 0:: w D..
100 I I
I I
I I
j
I
I 90
I
I
80 I.
70 I I
. I I
60 I
I
50 I
40 I
I
I l
11
30
20 I
I
I
I
10 '
!
I
0
1000
I
! I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
12" 6" 4" 3"
1 I I 11 •I
! I ! I I 'I
--2W2 (8.5'-9')
--2W2 (12,5'-13.5')
-2W2 (18'-18.5')
--.2W3(7'-7 .8')
-2m (9'-9.8')
o-2W4-C (4'-4.8')
-2W4-C (10'-10.7')
--+-2W4-C (15'-15.5')
--2VV6-S(2) (12.3'-13.3')
-+-2VV6-S(2) (15.3'-15.8')
-2W6-S(3) (15'-15.5')
-o-2E1 (17'-17.4')
-3-4N (5.2'-5.7')
--3-4N (7.3'-7.8')
--3-4N (9.3'-9.8')
-3-6N (5,8'-6,3')
-3-6N (10'-11')
--3-6N (14,5'-15.5')
--3-6N (17.5'-18.5')
I
I I ; I . i
I I
!
I ' I I
I ;
I I 11
I : t: I I I·
I I I
I . ' I I .
! I
' r
I i
100
2"
• l
I
I
i
!
I
r
I
I
I
I
I I
! I
I
l
I
!
l •
' l
' I ; I
!
I
I
!
l
' l
I
'I I
J
1" 3/4" 0 5" 3/8"
SIEVE SIZE
#4
I I I I ' I --t I :
r ' I I ' I
I ! I I I I
I i 1; I I I
I ' II ' I 11
i ; . I I!
I ' I I I II
I ' I I I
I i ' ' I
I II I
!
' I I I
I II I I I . 1: I ' .
I I I I
I' I
I r, I I I I ,, :1 , !, I ;
I Ji I !I
! 1'. I : ' ( I 11 I I I
I ' I' I I I
I ; " I I I I
I I I I
I .i
I ' I I I
I i ' I I I
I I I I l I I I
I I I
I I I I ; i I I
I I I . 11 I I
I I II ! .
I ,, II I II ,; I' 1; I
1 I 'I I : I I
I I ii
I I I'
r I I
I I I
1,
I ' I
I I 1,1 I
I r It
10
#10
-·-
I
' I ' I I
I j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I j
I
I
I
I
I
I I
' I
I 1
I
: I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MWH [2015]
HYDROMETER
#20 #40 #60 #100 #200
~~D I I I I I I I ,-: ~~ ~ ~ 1-...1 I I I I I
.J., 'II'\. -s...-. "",J'"'1 "" " I '~ I I I I I
I .,\ I\. I ~)..'·'-I'\. ...... '\. I I \, l I I J I
;1 I ; I '-.--~,1 ~ \. I I \. I I I I 1 I
II I I\ )i, I 1 ... ~·11. \\, \ \ I I I I I I
. ' '\.\ \\.. \\ .~ ~ \. ;\, \. I I I I
I I 1'11\ H ,. \I.\. " . \ )\ I I
I 'ii, " \• \ ,, \\ .1 r, I\. I
I ' I i\ • \I \ ~ I\ ~\I ' I I!
I I I \, \ \, " . \. i'\. I I I
I~~ ~ \. I I I
ii I \
I I I I) \ \ \', ,\ y ~I ' I
I I I ~ ti I I\ ' I I \ I ,\ 'II Ill ' \ I \ I I
I I ,. ' ,~ ' \, I I I I I
I I I ~ \ \.,\ \l.\ I'>.. .{TI I I Ii I
I I ' 'I I \ \ ~ ,.,_ ' I I I I
' j I I I I\ \ \ I l\ ."-I I I I I
I I I \ I\ \ I ,t II \.1 \ I , I I I I I
I : I I I '11 \ , 1, \ \ I I I I I
I I I I \ 11 \ I\. \. \, \ I I I I I I
' I ~ ' I I " \I \. I ' I I I i I I
' ' I , \ I • I'\ \ ,\ \ I I I I
I I I • . I 1.•I \ ,, . I I I I
i I ' \ II I '.;. \ I' I I I I I
I ' Ill I I~ : •\ 'l\-\ I!
II I f l \ . \\ '-\ \ I I I I
I I 1 I 8 l l I . I I I I I
I I I I\ I 'x ... 'I I I I I
'I :, I I 1,1 \ .\ I I I
11 11 ' -\ ;\ \ \, \ I 1 I
I 1, I I I ,, \ \ I ,•: I
I I ,I I \ \ I \ l i \ I I I I ,, I I ,l l ,,. \ '\) I 1 I I I I
I \\ I Ii ,... I I I I I I
I I I I '\\ I \.i\ I \ I ' I I
II I 1 \\ \ I I I N a..1 I I I I
I I I \\ \I I I I ' IJ I I 1 l I ' -I l \.. ."' --..I I
i \. ! I • " I ' I
d I I I I I ' '\.. .....
I I ! .~ I I " ......
I I ,I I 1• I I r
II I I I I I I
II I I I I I I I
I I I Ii I
I I 1 . I I I 1 1
! I I I I I
0.1 0,01
PARTICLE SIZE (MM)
BOULDERS COBBLES GRAW4. co.AASE j FINE I COAASE I ME010JAA
0 J!!mE' SILT
MWHSummary
ENERGY FUELS (USA) CORP.
I
I
I
I I
I t
I I
i I
I I
! I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I i
'
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I
~
I
I
I
i
WHITE MESA MILL
~
-
CLAY
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.001
I-:c CJ iii ~ >-m
C w z ;;:
I-w 0::
I-z w 0 0:: w Q.
Form No. TR-D422-3
Revision No. 0
Revision Date: 02/20/08
!sample Log No.:10017
S&ME Project #:
MWH [2015]
Particle Size Analysis of Soils
ASTM D422
S&ME, Inc., 1413 Topside Road, Louisville, TN 37777
Quality Assurance
1439-13-335 Report Date: 4/2/14
14
Project Name: White Mesa Mill Test Date(s): 12/17/13 -12/27/13
Client Name: MWH Americas, Inc. Amended 1/10/14
Address: Fort Collins, CO (D854)
Boring No.: 2W3 Sample Date: 10/17/13
Depth: 7.0 8.5 ft
Sample Description: SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), gray, fine sand!corrected depth 7.0-7.8' (MWH 2/16/1 5)j
111 3/4" 1/211 3/811 #4 #10 #10 #40 #60 #100 #200
100% .. ,..""
90%
·i""o,..._
' 80% ~
\
70% \
\
~ l .9 60% "' "' ~ i:l,, 50% .... = II ~ ~ 1"11~ r.. ~ 40% i:l,, ... "
30% ~
\
20% \
\
I
10%
0%
100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Cobbles < 300 mm (12") and> 75 mm (3") Fine Sand < 0.425 mm and > 0.075 mm (#200)
Gravel < 75 mm and > 4.75 mm (#4) Silt < 0.075 and > 0.005 mm
Coarse Sand < 4.75 mm and >2.00 mm (#10) Clay <0.005 mm
Medium Sand < 2.00 mm and > 0.425 mm (#40) Colloids < 0.001 mm
Maximum Particle Size:
Silt & Clay (% Passing #200):
Specific Gravity
Liquid Limit:
Description of Sand and Gravel
Mechanical Stirring Apparatus A
Refere11ces I Comments I Deviations:
N. Randy Rainwater
Technical Responsibi/i1y
No. 20 Gravel: 0.0% Silt 35.1%
46.3% Total Sand: 53.7% Clay 11.2%
2.84
27 Plastic Limit: 21 Plasticity Index: 6
Rounded D Angular (2S] Hard & Durable IBl Soft O Weathered & Friable 0
Dispersion Period: I min. Dispersing Agent: Sodium Hexametaphosphate:
ASTM D422, D4318, D2487, D854
..e~~
Signature
Laboratory Department Manager
Position
40 g./ Liter
4/2/2014
Dale
This reporl shall not be reproduced. except in fit!/, 11'ithout the ll'riuen approral of S&ME, Inc.
S&ME, Inc. -Corporate 3201 Spring Forest Road
Raleigh, NC. 27616
ASTM D422 w _ Hydro, 2W3, 7-8.5 ft RI.xis
Page I of 1
MWH [2015]
Laboratory Record Version 4. l
.S&ME Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials
Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter (Method "C")
Project#: 1439-13-335 Test Date(s): 12/13/13-12/18/13
Project Name: White Mesa Report Date: 4/2/14
Client Name: MWH Americas, Inc. Sample Date: 10/17/2013
Client Address: Fort Collins, CO Panel ID: 16019
Boring#: 2W3 Depth: ~ {corrected depth 7.0 -7.8 (MWH 2/16/1 5)
Sample Description: SILTY, CLAYEY SAND (SC-SM), gray, fine sand
Liquid Limit: 27 Specific Gravity: 2.84 Sample Type: 1.4 in. dia. Tube Log#: 10017
Plastic Limit: 21 Plastic Index: 6 Percent Passing #200: 46.3 Maximum Particle Size: No. 20
Initial Specimen Conditions
Length (cm): 4.21 I Wet Density (PCF): 120.1
Diameter (cm): 3.54 I Dry Density (PCF): 89.2
Area (cm2) 9.83 I Percent Saturation: 99.6
Volume (cm3) 41.36
Wet weight (grams) 79.6 Void Ratio: 0.986
Dry Weight (grams) 59.1 Porosity: 0.497
Percent Moisture: 34.6
Test Parameters: Effective Consolidation Stress (psi): 5.0
Surette Area -~rn2): 0.960 I Cell Pressure (psi): 75.5
Time (24-hr) Temperature l"_C)
Start End Time Initial Final Ave. Factor I hout1 I h1n 1 (sec)
2:35 2:55 1200 21 .6 21.7 21 .6 0.9618 15.50 8.50
2:55 3:16 1260 21.7 21.7 21.7 0.9607 15.00 9.00
3:16 3:36 1200 21 .7 21.7 21 .7 0.9601 14.50 9.50
3:36 3:56 1200 21.7 21 .7 21.7 0.9601 14.00 10.00
Notes: Revised 1/10/14 with Specific Gravity value per 0854.
References:
ASTM D 5084: Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous
Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter
ASTM D 2216: Laboratory Determination of Water (Moisture) Content
of Soil and Rock by Mass
Technician: Michael Kelso
Technical Responsibility: N. Randy Rainwater
S&ME, INC., 1413 Topside Rd., Louisville, TN 37777
Final Specimen Conditions
Length (cm): 3.57 I Wet Density (PCF): 126.8
Diameter (cm): 3.70 I Dry Density (PCF): 96.3
Area (cm2) 10.74 Percent Saturation: 100.0
Volume (cm3) 38.34 8-Parameter: 0.95
Wet weight (grams) 77.9 Void Ratio: 0.842
Dry Weight (grams) 59.1 Porosity: 0.457
Percent Moisture: I 31.7
Permeant Liquid Used: Deaired Water
Influent Pressure (psi): I 70.5 Effluent Pressure (psi)I 70.0
Measurements Initial I Final K-Value (cm/sec)
Gradient Gradient Uncorrected Corrected
K-Value K-Value I houi2 I h1n2 I h1 I h2
15.00 9.00 42.4 41.4 11.89 11.59 3.30E-06 I 3.17E-06
14.50 9.50 41.4 40.4 11.59 11.30 3.22E-06 3.10E-06
14.00 10.00 40.4 39.3 11 .30 11.01 3.47E-06 3.33E-06
13.50 10.50 39.3 38.3 11 .01 10.72 3.56E-06 3.42E-06 l Averages 11.45 11.16 3.39E-06 3.3F-06,
Conductivity vs. Time
4.0E-06
., 3.0E-06 ::,
oi :::, 2.0E-06 :.::
1H t I
1000 2000
~&,<4irtraJ2
signature
3000
Cumulative Time (sec.)
4000 5000
Position: Laboratory Department Manager
ASTM D5084 Flex Wall Penn Method C (2W3, 2, 7-8.S ft)R1.xls
48
MWH [2016]
C.2.4 Specific Gravity, Density and Porosity
The densities and porosities of the tailings and cover materials used in the model are based on
laboratory testing results. The values are summarized in Table C.2 and discussed in more
detail below.
Table C.2. Density and Porosity Values
Degree of Placed Placed
Specific Compaction Density Density
Material Gravity (%) (pcf) (glee) lPoroaltv'
Erosion Protection (topsoil) 2.61 85% SP 100 1.6 0.38
Erosion Protection (rock mulch)* 2.62 85% SP 106 1.7 0.35
Random fill (low compaction 2.63 85% SP 100 1.6 0.39 water storage, rooting zone)
Random Fill (high compaction) 2.63 95% SP 112 1.8 0.32
Random Fill (in place, low 2.63 80% SP 94 1.5 0.43 compaction, platform fill)
ITallim:is 2.80 --96 1.5 0.45
SP = standard proctor compaction
* Estimated by applying a 25% rock correction to the topsoil
The specific gravity of the tailings was estimated as 2.80 based as the weighted average
specific gravity from laboratory tests using estimated percentages of sand, sand-slime, and
slime tailings of 10, 65, and 25 percent, respectively (MWH, 2015). The dry density of the
tailings was estimated as 96 pcf, based on laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and
Western Colorado Testing, 1999b) and assuming the upper bound long-term density of the
tailings should be no greater than 90 percent of the average laboratory measured maximum dry
density for the tailings. The referenced reports are provided as part of Appendix A.1 of MWH
(2011 ). The porosity of the tailings was calculated using the estimated specific gravity and dry
density based on the following equation:
where
n = 1-(.!EL)
GsYw
n = porosity,
yd = dry density of soil,
Gs = specific gravity of soil, and
Yw = unit weight of water.
(Eq . C.1)
The specific gravity and dry density values used in the model for the random fill layers were
estimated by laboratory tests (ATT, 2010 and UWM, 2012). The referenced reports will be
provided as part of Appendix A.2 of the next version of the of the Updated Tailings Cover
Design report. These reports were presented in Attachment B of EFRI (2012). The estimation
for the values used in the model is provided in Attachment C.2. The porosity values for the
layers were calculated using equation C.1. The proposed cover system has three layers of
random fill placed at different levels of compaction. The lower layer of random fill consists of a
minimum thickness of 2.5 feet of random fill that is assumed to be dumped and minimally
compacted by construction equipment to approximately 80 percent standard Proctor. The
middle layer (3.0 -4.0 feet) of random fill will be compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor.
In Cell 2 and parts of Cell 3, the lower layer of random fill is already placed and is approximately
Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-3 April 2016
MWH [2016]
3 feet. It is assumed the upper 6 inches of this fill will be part of the middle random fill layer and
can be compacted by additional passes of compactors to reach 95 percent of standard Proctor
compaction. The uppermost 3.5 feet of random fill will be placed at 85 percent of standard
Proctor compaction in order to optimize water storage and rooting characteristics for plant
growth.
The 0.5 foot erosion protection layer is assumed to be topsoil or rock mulch consisting of topsoil
material mixed with 25 percent gravel by weight. The specific gravity and density of the topsoil
was estimated to be 2.61 and 100 pcf, respectively, based on laboratory testing results for
topsoil (UWM, 2012) The specific gravity and density of the rock mulch was estimated to be
2.62 and 106 pcf, respectively, based on laboratory testing results for topsoil (UWM, 2012) and
applying a rock correction based on 25 percent gravel by weight.
C.2.5 Long-term Moisture Content
The long-term moisture content value for the tailings is assumed to be 6 percent. This is a
conservative assumption, per NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64 (NRC, 1989), which represents the
lower bound for moisture in western soils and is typically used as a default value for the long-
term water content of tailings. Use of 15 bar water contents to estimate a long-term water
content is one of the methods recommended in NRC (2003) for radon emanation modeling.
MWH collected representative samples from the on-site random fill and topsoil stockpiles for
use in estimating the long-term moisture contents for the random fill and erosion protection
cover layers. The laboratory results for the 15 bar water contents for these samples were used
to estimate long-term water contents for the random fill and erosion protection layers.
The long-term water content of the topsoil was estimated as 5.2 percent based on the measured
15 bar gravimetric water content for a topsoil sample (E 1-A) which represents the average index
properties for the topsoil stockpiles (UWM, 2012). The long-term water content of the rock
mulch was estimated as 4 percent based on the addition of 25 percent gravel by weight to the
topsoil.
Based on the cover material gradations, the cover soils were bracketed into three groups, finer
grained soils, uniform graded soils, and broadly graded soils. A weighted average procedure
that accounts for the size of soil type based on the stockpile volumes was incorporated to
determine the average long-term gravimetric water content for the random fill using the
measured 15 bar water contents. The estimation of the long-term water content value for the
cover material is provided in Attachment C.2.
The average long-term moisture contents are summarized in Table C.3.
Table C.3. Estimated Long-Term Moisture Contents
Grav.hnetric Water
Material Content(%)
Erosion Protection (topsoil) 5.2
Erosion Protection (rock mulch) 4.0
Random fill 6.7
Tailings 6.0
Energy Fuels Resources (USA), Inc. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-4 April 2016
APPENDIXE
Boring Logs and Geotechnical Laboratory
Results
Appendix
Seismic Refracti
TABLE E-1
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Mill
Geosyntect>
consultant~
-· -··· . """""""
S N b Survev1 End Points Survey Line C 11 (SA SB) Approximate Depth Range' Seismic Velocity Range bT A J S b rt: C d'ti urvey um er Direction e or (feet bgs) (Feet per Second) Excavata 11ty ssessment u su ace on 1 ons
Latitude Longitude
0 to 4 1287 to 1392 Rippable
SL-12-01-0lF N37.52603 W109,5161 I [3;~ SA 4 to 36 4944 to 5053 Rippable
> 36 6195 to 7403 Riooable
Rev Oto 6 1312 to 2563 Rippable SL-12-01-0lR N37.52554 WI09.51566 N32W SA > 6 5358 to 6372 Riooab\e
0 to 4 1341 to 1408 Rippable
SL-12-02-0lF N37.52603 WI09,5161 I ~;~ 5A 4 to 14 3457 to 5578 Rippable
> 14 ,+ 6512 to 6802 Riooable
SL-12-02-0lR N37 52647 W109.51649 ~~~ SA 8 to 12 ·.._ 4245 to 5672 Rippable
Oto8 ~r 1571 to2191 Rippable
>12 a.. 6538 to 7012 Riooable
F d ~ ' 0-5.25 FT Residual Soil TP12-02 N37.52600 Wl09.51614 N3~W SA -5.25-6.75 FT Weathered Sandstone 6.75
1-------------1--------1--------1-------I---------I------,,...;, ...._ to 7.0 FT Dakota Sandstone ~ 1482 to 1658 Rippable
SL-12-03-0lF N37.52499 W109.51506 S~;~ SA 5 to-!.' 3866 to 4754 Rippable
>21 , 6087 to 6492 Riooable
Rev (.~Oto 6 -...._ 1804 to 2078 Rippable SL-12-03-0lR N37.52447 WI09.51466 N30E SA '\ ....... ~...... ' 4854 to 5966 Riooable
~ 0-LS FT Rcsidu.:il Soil
TP12-04 N37 52507 WI09.51506 Fwd SA · -1.5-7.s FT Weathered Sandstone
N32W ~ ' 7 .5-8.0 FT Shale Layer ~ ' ' SO FT"·'·••• C::,n~---·
'
V.)L ,Q,o4 1059tol317 Rippable
SL-12-04-0IF N37.52546 WI09,51749 {;;~ -~Vro 25 3264 to 4564 Rippable
" >25 5918106499 Riooable
~
'-' Oto5 1052tol681 Rippable
SL-12-04-0JR N37,52532 W109.51675 N~;~ ~. . "\ \.. 5 to 14 2998 to 5299 Rippable
~ ~ > 14 5663 to 7907 Margjnal
TPl2-0l N37,52546 W109.51749 S;E ..... It... SA --5.0-6,75 FT Weathered Sandstone
F d "-'It, ~ 0-5 FT Residual Soil
' 6,75 to 7.0 FT Dakota Sandstone
"-~/ Oto9 1137tol691 Rippable
SL-12-05-0IF N37.52384 WI09,51791 ::i~ ¥A >9 6235 to 7003 Rippable
0 to 7 1684 to 1939 Rippable
SL-12-05-0IR N37.52416 WI09.51729 S~;: SA >7 6281 to 8285 Marginal
~ ~FTb~~
TPlZ-07 N37.52388 WI09.51793 NlOE SA -7,0-8.5 FT Weathered Sandstone
8.5-9,5 FT Dakota Sandstone
0 to 3 2083 to 234 7 Rippable
SL-12-06-0lF N37.52438 WI09.51460 :;~ SA 3 to 46 4826 to 4905 Rippable
Survey Number Survev1 End Points
Latitude Longitude
SL-12-06-0IR N37.52388 WI09.51418
TP12-06 N37.52408 Wl09,51434
SL-12-07-0IF N37.52438 W109.51460
SL-12-07-01 R N37.52338 WI09.51372
TP12-09 N37.52294 Wl09.51320
SL-12-08-0IF N37.52443 Wl09 51648
SL-12-08-0IR N37.52477 WI09.51582
TPl2-0S N37.52443 Wl09.51621
TP12-08 N37.52326 W\09.51534
SL-12-09-0IF N37.52544 Wl09.51392
SL-12-09-0IR N37 52570 Wl09.51324
TPl2-03 N37.52559 Wl09.51355
TP12-I0 N37.52464 Wl09.5I260
SL-12-10-0IF N37.524778 Wl09.50861
SL-12-10-0IR N37.52452 WI09.50928
Survey Line
Direction
Rev
N30W
Fwd
N30W
Fwd
S30E
TABLE E-1
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Mill
-·-··-····-· -..
Cell (SA or SB) Approximate Depth Range2
(feet bgs)
0 to4
5A >4
5A
Oto4
5A 4 to 19 A
> 19 ..4 ,
Seismic Velocity Range
(Feet per Second)
1489 to 2965
4955 to 6415
-
1488 to 2035
4757 to 5046
66%
Oto4 r ~ 1308 to 2080 Rev 5A 4to 34 4899to 5169 N30W >34 .... 8444 to 8736
Fwd <( A ~ 5A/5B N20E
o~K( 1061 to 1283 Fwd SA (;:--......S to 17 3354 to 4800 N62E ~ 17 6025
\~V 1521 to 1732 Rev SA 4927 to 5849 S62W -~ I> \-Fwd
N40E
Fwd -..J
NIOW ~~ -.........
~r 5, '~ 0 to 5 1211 to 2207 Fwd >5 5570 to 6148 N65E r...
~/I Oto6 1269 to 1639 Rev 6 to 17 4661 to 6630 S65W >17 7230 to 7274
Fwd SA --S65W
Fwd
N88W SA/SB -.
Oto6 1442 to 1904 Fwd SB >6 5620 to 7611 S68W
Oto4 1835 to 2395 Rev SB >4 6387 to 7509 N68E
Geosyntece>
consultants
Excavatability Assessment3 Subsurface Conditions
Rippable
Rippable
0-2 0 FT Residual Soil
2.0-3.5 FT Weathered Sandstone
3.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
RinMble
Rippable
Rippable
Marginal
0-5.5 FT Residual Soil
5.5-6.5 FT Weathered Sandstone
6.5-7.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Riooable
Rippable
Rippable
0-4.5 FT Residual Soil
4,5-6 5 FT Weathered Sandstone
6.5-7.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
0-6.0 FT Residual Soil
6.0-7.5 FT Weathered Sandstone
7.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Riooable
0-5.5 FT Residual Soil
5.5-7.0 FT Weathered Sandstone
7.0 FT Dakota Sandstone
0-4.5 FT Residual Soil
4.5-9.0 FT Weathered Sandstone
9.0-9.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Marginal
Rippable
Marginal
Survey Number Survev1 End Points
Latitude Longitude
TP12-12 N37.52479 WI09.50859
SL-12-11-0IF N37.525045 WI09.507928
SL-12-11-0lR N37.524778 WJ09.50861
SL-12-12-01 F N37.52419 WJ09.51025
SL-12-12-0lR N37 52441 WI09,50956
TP12-l3 N37 52419 WI09,51025
SL-12-13-01 F N37.5249 WI09.51025
SL-12-13-0IR N37.52389 WI09.51102
SL-12-14-0lF N37.52330 WJ09.51234
SL-12-14-0lR N37.52361 WI09,51167
TPl2-15 N37.52361 WJ09.51167
TP12-17 N37.52253 WI09.51065
SL-12-15-01 F N37.52542 WI09.51112
SL-12-15-0lR N37 52493 WI09.51077
TP12-ll N37,52512 WJ09.51098
Survey Line
Direction
Fwd
S65W
Fwd
N68E
Rev
S68W
TABLE E-1
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Mill
Bi ---~ -
Cell (SA or 58) Approximate Depth Range2
(feet bgs)
SB -
Oto 6
SB >6
Oto 10 ? SB >JO A
Seismic Velocity Range
(Feet per Second)
-
1157 to 1227
7036 to 7052
1411 to 1480
7343 to 8088
Oto4 r ~ 1061 to 1488 Fwd 5B 4to 17 3331 to 4947 N70E >17 .. 8999 to 9761 Otor ~1672to 1955 Rev SB 3( ~ 4721 to 5496 S70W 6643 to 7372
Fwd -~, S70W SB .
~ 'V~v 1349 to 3557 Fwd SB 7286 to 9352 S70W __ ,_
~ Ll:~s 1138 to 1248 Rev 6186 to 8977 N70E
Fwd ~~ --.,/°Oto6 1098 to 1775
6 to 28 6361 to6041 N62E >28 8046 to 8964
~~ 5~
.... ,.) Oto6 1369 to 1419 Rev >6 7171 to7762 S62W ii.
Fwd ~# S60W
.
~ .,
Fwd
N8E SB . .
0 to 8 1478 to 3030 Fwd SB >8 6346 to 7738 S20E
Rev Oto9 1305 to 1554
S30E 5B 9to 16 3197 to 4279
>16 7886 to 8107
Fwd
N25W SB . .
Geosyntect>
consultant:;.
Excavatability Assessment3 Subsurface Conditions
0-6.5 FT Residual Soil
6.5-7.5 FT Weathered Sandstone
7.5-8.0 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Rippable
Marginal
Rippable
Rippable
Non-Riooable
Rippable
Rippable
Riopable
0-0.5 FT Residual Soil . 0.5-1.0 FT Weathered Sandstone
L0-2.0 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Non-Rippable
Rippable
Marginal
Rippable
Rippable
Marginal
Rippable
Marginal
0-5,5 FT Residual Soil
5.5-6 0 FT Weathered Sandstone
6,5 FT Dakota Sandstone
0-0.5 FT Residual Soil
0.5-2.0 FT Weathered Sandstone
2.0-3.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Marginal
Rippable
Rippable
Marginal
0-3.5 FT Residual Soil
3.5-11 0 FT Weathered Sandstone
I L0-12 0 FT Dakota Sandstone
Survey Number Sun•ev1 End Poinn Survey Line
Direction Latitude Longitude
TP12-19 N37,525SO WI09,50965 Fwd
N15W
SL-12-IIH>IF N37.52330 W109.50919 Fwd
N32W
N37.52380 W109,50957 Rev SL-12-16-0IR S32E
TPl2-16 N37.52329 WI09.50913 Fwd
S40E
TABLE E-1
SUMMARY OF SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS
Energy Fuel~, White Mesa Mill
·-·--... -
Cell (SA or SB) Approximate Depth Range2
(feet bgs)
SB -
0106
SB 6to22
>22
SB 0 to 6
>6 •• ~ r
SB ~ -
Seismic Velocity Range
(Feet per Second)
-
1388
2951105517
9648
1215 to 1816
6435 to 6930
-
Fwd 0104 , "\,~ 1391 to 2336
SL-12-17-0IF N37.52330 Wl09.50919 S32E SB 41017 , 4801 to 4874
>ft -A 7554 :,~ 1694 to 1730
SL-12-17-0IR N37,52280 WI09,50872 Rev SB 4762 to 5491 N32W >22 ' "-6479106483
Fwd ...... ' TPl2-18 N37,52223 W109.50835 SB ~ -N30W
\~s .... 1090 to 1379
SL-12-IS-OIF N37.52431 WI09.50755 Fwd SB, " s,:26 5202 to 6893 E-W >26 7491 to 10938
~~ '.!:::::::::,. V 10 -1 1361 to 1420 Rev SL-12-IS-OIR N37,52430 WI09.50829 E-W 41020 5110 to 5363 -.... >20 7861 to 11264
TPl2-14 N37.52431 WI09.50749 Fwd1A S88W ~~" ~
Notes ~~ s);/ ! -~~'.'.;~0ci:~!.'.'.1~~~=,'."~c~':,'.'-~~:::~~~e~~'.':'r.d~~~~!~ -~~~~~~n~:'..'~:~:~~-~egree Worl ctic S I (WGS) 84. Data collected in field.
RS -Residual Soil
wxs -weathered sandstone
Kds -Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone
Geosyntect>
consultants
Excavatability Assessment3 Subsurface Conditions
0-1 5 FT Residual Soil
1,5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Non-Rinn.sble
Rippable
Riooable
0-0 5 FT Residual Soil
-0,5-6.0 FT Weathered Sandstone
6,0-6 5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Mareinal
Rippab\e
Rippable
Rippable
0-4.5 FT Residual Soil
4.5-6.0 FT Weathered Sandstone
6.0-6.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
Rippable
Rippable
Non-Rinnable
Rippable
Rippable
Non-Rinnable
0-4.5 FT Residual Soil
4.5-7.5 FT Weathered Sandstone
7.5 FT Dakota Sandstone
D9R/D9T
TABLE E-2
SEISMIC VELOCl1Y AND RIPPABILl1Y CORRELATION
Energy Fuels, White Mesa Mill
Blanding, Utah
• Multi or Slngle Shank No. 9 Ripper
• Estimated by Seismic Wave Velocities
Seismic Velocity 0 2
Meters Per Second x 1000 I I
Feel Per Second X 1000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TOPSOIL
CLAY
GLACIAL TILL
IGNEOUS ROCKS
GRANITE
BASALT
mAPAOCK
SEDIMENTARY ROCKS
SHALE
SANDSTONE
SILTSTONE
CLAYSlONE
CONGLOMERATE
BRECCIA
CALICHE
LIMESTONE
METAMORPHIC ROCKS
SCHIST
SLATE
MINERALS & ORES
COAL
IRON ORE
materials using a Single Shank No. 9 ripper on a
Geosyntec t>
consultants
3 4
I I
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
NON-AIPPABLE ~~
Geosyntec C>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Page of \
Boring I.D.:
Date Started: 11 Is It '2..
Date Complete-d=-: .....i..i....i..:::~, 1"T\=-s'T'f,-2--------rrr2. -\
Geologist/Eng.:
Drilling Company:
Borehole Diameter: __ _...Z...i'i....i.:! N~t=,,1H..._ .... f\t~u.;::;.:,,c.,1,;;1'-.t:J.J.-. __ _
---------------Borehole Depth: ') F""J
Dr ill in g Method: Depth to Water: N 14
Comments: "' ~-,. S'l.}%" 0 ~€)
iii C:
£ $ Cl)
0. -= E Cl) Cl) I= 0 0. E C1l en
l':,'-1
Reviewed by:
-~
IO
~ 0
ffi
Lithologic Description
<c, Pf"Ar~: •,,,. ,., f\..)E 'J '-' "{ ',1'.,.1\:>1 ~S'II 1, (:,f?h.45',
~(~11lu~~.Son:t>E1--l',.e!,M •1~">1 \/rL-l.-OvV'.,1..-'EEo (,;y~ ··~lt,,""7t,
:~/c..) s11-,,1 "'">" n, vc~-j r=•"-'E. Stvv•;;, [<;M)
'v. N\eO 'S, l'.o~•6 1 <>
'~ ., ·~{: (!..,;;,,. 8/: -----
C) f Q) 2l
.9 C1l -c 0. 0 U) -~ 8 0 -c
0 ~ C1l
.c Q) (I)
E a:: I-::c en ~ >, #. < en 0
R.G.#
Comments
Ito }~: r T n:,JO·I
------------------------------------
J:\standard\forms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
Geosyntec C>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Boring 1.0.:
Vu\.\1:[f M£\e M!kk Cw ~/1.ll)INk:)
Tel2 -2
Geologist/Eng.:
Drilling Company: ____________ _
Drilling Method: ~\CHIJ£ -:!p , o
Comments: .,i;1 .~z.t.,o 't' 101 .s-11.o ,,~
~ .5
:6 s Ql co
Cl. .E E ....
(!) (!) I= ~ C ii E ai «I
Lithologic Description
(/)
Page of ------Date Started: _..;.1...;..1 +-"{ sc.....:(-,.:12..::;;...... _______ _
Date Completed: __ ,_, 1..al s;;..li..:..n~ .. -------
Borehole Diameter: 2.. "'\ 11,.J(..\..\ ].ve,~q
Borehole Depth: 7,P f-r -"'-"-----,----------0 e pt h to Water: -------'rv./,q........_ _____ _
..9 ?-Ql B ro
Ql "C Cl. 0 fl) .~ > 0 "C
0 8 ~ ro Comments .0 Q) Ql
E Cl'. I-::c::
U) ~ >, -;fl. < en 0
i";lD Si.>!! l'."4",£,:
{!c~. ~'-.So,1.,. t.'FrJSf, W'<.11";,, \/f;L.1..()...,,~~ ec.o(.sf(!.·'lh, T() I<., r---r -0~£r-J(:.~
Reviewed by:
S/ltij St'-"/ f'-1"-.ll'c ,t, VE;,.'( F«l',·_ S1>.1.Jt1 [•jv,J
DAv.o,~ ~ANl'>.$YCi.Jt
<!! 5,u;'
-------------------------
j:\standard\forms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
l vf.·.ey ~A."()
~ ~.-.·,.:~t.,.1 .... J(,..
R.G.# ________ _
Geosyntec t>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: SLo <P :.'-l Page I of
Site Name: \,,J'°"i-rl! Vlf ~A M1t..1.. (131-A,.;Pt...ie,,) Date St_a_rt-ed...,..:--11 ! ~ rl -11-___ _
Boring I.D.: re12 -2:, Date Completed: _..;.11;..,.l ...... '8_..l....:1-z.:;;...._ ______ _
Geologist/Eng.: :;s:. 1.NA:&JECL Borehole Diameter_: __ '2::;."1~.;.:.'i-JC..='..i.+.._.:'P.:.v=;:,c.t-c;;.E'T::..:.. __
Drilling Company:_____________ Borehole Depth: 3:.0 fT
Drilling Method: _ __..e,A=c..~<l.~,~~:.~=-----..l!A&.:o::;._>-,.;/ o~--Depth to Water: "->\A
Comments: /\.l~l. s2.~5>9"' w10-,. S\~55,0
( su,sw)
~ = ,S! a,
C. ..!: E a, a, I= a a. E nl U)
,4,S'
Reviewed by:
.5 co
~ ffi
Lithologic Description
Svt2~.4C.G: '::>11,.."T'( fl,vF-. ,t, v,;.,1.y Flf'Je:. SANl)1 C,MS~
ii..s1>tDv4I.. 5011..: DE,-J~e., 1"'1c,1~-r. y6"1.J.b-'-'•l H /a~p
(5'(£.· 'f/1., -,0 '5/r.,,) "'::>11..'T'( A.,!( ~ V£.""Y FINI:. ~0
['!>M).
€ 3 · FT ,/ -,up OF c-"'tl~l'(Tlli
ltv,O .,__.,.. ... ~,SQJ;;.:0 :'>A,-..>o~'fo.NE
J
------------------------
J:\standard\forms\Field Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
.9 ~ a, > -~ 8 0 .0 a,
E a'.
>-~ U)
R.G.#
a, 8 nl "C C. 8 U) "C
~ m
I-:c ~ ~ 0
Comments
21 p, J!<EJ'JLM
°1 vU.'{ HAI-0
01<,-c,.1,JC,-
-----------
Geosyntec C>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Boring I.D.:
VV 'i:I TE. M .;!.4 M\Y... ( P..I.ANO.vc,.)
-rp1'2.-4
Page of
Date Started: 11 ( v .... li-2. ___ _
Date Completed: 11 \ 8 l I z.
GeologisUEng.: Borehole Diameter: 2."\ 111Jc..1-+ a.u,~,, ----:aa....:..._..;;..;;;.;.;c.._.;:;;.;'-'--'-...:.----Drilling Company: ____________ _ Borehole Depth: 8',o PT
Drilling Method:
Comments:
ni C: .5
f ~ Q) co
E -Q) Q) i= ~ 0 c.. E 0
Ill 1i5
1/)
13,
Reviewed by:
Depth to Water: 1V!A
( N'2..:l,\N) W lo~. S.I Sbla'
Lithologic Description
sua..F'.44\S : $1 L "T'y 'flo.1\!c T .. Vt:.fl.'{ F'~rJr! <:.-."11) I c,n,o. 5
12E;!,1 Dl..>AL.. .Sol'-: D ~,J\i!: 1 "'1ulST 1 '/6:U...W/5 1-+ P..\'$:D
( S'f~ -4 /1; 7o r; /e,.) St '-"'f"'/
. 'S' ,:
~"T?'>, !>J>w'O ~=A>e :
/.j./G,/J~,, ""'"~TltO::"-"'--D, W~A"-"T?.l
P•AH.tC.1 ~ lvl~r"f"G ( t.. 'S"'j jl. • 8 /l.)
r~.<!i'.t::. ~"Te~, ANF-&f2AI~
'/~ ('2..~'(-'i&l-z. T.,~~)
'E,~ DF i~.n ~IT
A.T g,o r-,
.9 QI B 2:-111
Q) "O 0.
(.J 8 8 VI "O '.8 ~ tll
Cll Q)
0:: I-J: E 1/) ~ >, ~ <( en 0
0
R.G.#
'l..'-\
Comments
F-r 1il.!r--1C.~
------------------------------------
J:\standardlforms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
Geosyntec 1>
consultants BORING LOG
Page of Project No.: Sc.o (p Site Name: -w-· -,,-,-1 _M_t:;._(,._A __ fVl_l _1.,,_1.,_(,....6_1,,_/\_.,_1)_1_ ... -G'5...--Date Started: 11 Is l ,z..-----
Boring l.D.: _.,.-_C'.....;.;12-;...·...,s=----....... -------Date Completed: -'""'"'-(;"'_.._) ,_2-_______ _
GeologisUEng.: A G(2.u; . ..:i£ / .J_ v.11,l->l.::L Borehole Diameter: :z+ •iJcii !3->c~c:T·
Drilling Company: ____________ _ Borehole Depth: 7. ~ 1--r --------------Drilling Method: ~ACil-1'1.t.·~ .JO 3 ,0
Comments: t\J'.l:tl . 5 2 '1 '-1 2 \y I s: ~I 10 2.1
::Depth to Water: N/1\ 0-+oE:~
iii ~
:6 i Cl) a. E Cl) Q) i= 0 ci E nl 1/)
1z,t:
Reviewed by:
.5 cc -Lithologic Description
m.:r.c.t;: .5J-!.-;'/ e),V{:_ ·;o V/CP·1 ,,-,,.r: ',"-,J,)1 .SU.OR:, (,~W~
/2 CS",{),J I ... S:<' I,_ ·: r:>c.r-~(' /"0· 1,.,-. '/f, .... o .... • 1~1 /?.Et:, (s'lr,. -·1/1, Ti) Sjr,.
SJ L "'T>{ r:"JfVE·~ ..,..r, vr;,::.~-J J:.~i,v~ SP..N!,.> [..SM1.
cl>~.~·
'ToP c'-' C ~'3otJA7(
'/H'--Q,.j ( syi-1,,( "')
v'c/\1i,lofo:cc, Sl\..,O S
-------------------------
J:lstandard\forms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
C) ~ 0 ...J ~ (.) 8 '§ .c Q)
E 0::
>, '.fl 1/)
R.G.#
Q) 8 ro "C a. 8 II) "C
:::i: ~
I-J: ~ ~ 0
Comments
I'-/ rT T2£1JC1A--
li ..;..-p.1 ,l,i,<1.~
(j\ (!.t:, ,,-.,6
-----------
Geosyntec C>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: Page of II I fl/ 12 .. 70,-~.r n
Site Name:
Comments:
I = .5 Q)
!fr Q) E
0 Q. t=
E (0
(/)
/oJ.<>
------Boring 1.0.: "TP\~·(p '2.A,/ /I\JLt./ R,vcic~ 1!:,..\c."1.iot,;. 'J"O '!J6
N 3J. 52.~09., W lo<J. 514+'-+ • (,y 30 w \ -----'"'-----.......;.--....;;;..---,----=.;..;_
.£
co
~ 0 ai
Lithologic Description
M9t: I!': .s•LT'f RA>c. -n, vc~ q,.i E 'i>A,oJ!), 1/ao.., GP~\
tf!u-~ ,o,~! Oli,-,f.£', M••!>'f, '{l:;.LOwlSM 12.~D (~111.-'-l/b rv
S/"\ S1L-r,/ f:'•"'E -ro VfUl'f F•"'a. 5,A.vO (:'IM'J
• MC,Oli's>....-,1~'/ "-'E'A-rf\,1,IZ~O .'1-o!r"T<,,,~ f,11~•0-IH ~..,. /.{> ~
t <l 2,0 fCT
To!" o,=-cAi:te,.,._..,,.l!! 1.lc:112,1,, e,,ct,,.,Q;..,L c..l......,c.1!
I\Aool':°IZA-r16L"j ... .e-A .... H6"-<C1 '5.A.NO",-r .. "'E
M'U"I~ !',l'v>J O ::>TCl,-J(i
M ~06"aM"S..."'1 ""_ ... #<!....:,,, pru1ir, ,l <;.c. .. o "7uNI:, v-1.i.,-r,,: -ru i:tw~t\\.l C,41>.
8' ....I
.2 0 .c E >,
(/)
Q) ~ Q) 'C
> 8 8 ~ Q) a:: ~ ~ 0
8 (0 a. C/l 'C (0 Q) :c
~ 0
Comments
~lia$t S"t',\,U7 S,4,\.J(I \~,£'
~N·\\ IN ,:E",..Tl!"C ~I'°
T,;,;, l"'-r A, }., :r F'r
-i ur:-av iJ-4110
n,,:..c,,,.i<,.
J:\standardlforms\Fleld Fonns 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log (2)
Geosyntec e>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: Page l of -----Site Name:
Boring I.D.:
~11f /\;)~(4 /Vl)LL ( l';J.&pl.-J&)
:IP12-'+
Date Started: _1._.1'""')_q~l,.,.,l...:::'l-.---------
Date Comp!eted: _.,_11=-4! ...... 'l .... f .... 12..__ ______ _
Geologist/Eng.: Borehole Diameter: 2..y 1,vc,.1:I: r?,.IX If e,
Drilling Company: ____________ _ Borehole Depth: q, S" f:J
Drilling Method: fu'¥.-~tto ~ 'Jo 3;1 o Depth to Water: _____ ,..,""'l._A"--------
(t-ao ra) Comments: '"' > t'.· $2.:,fi'.R". hll 09 , 5 1:t'J:3"
I = ..5 Q) a. E Q) Q) i= 0 Q. E (II en
CYdo
5
,!,;
co
~ iii
Litho'ogic Description
~vt1tAC..iS. ! '-1;.,.'T~ t<='I~ 'fo vf:ie.'J FN::_ t..w:>, (\lof.1 ~.S
PG:~IDU~l.. S1>1t-; 'P'E'Mk., ""°'Si, \/i:;:'LLC..1,,1$1-\ ll\C Q
(,;y.12· 4h, -, • .:;1'"1 ,,L'r,1 ,=:!/,'Jfe. "1l> "~ ... )'
[tMl
'TPP ",r:. CA/lS•"'"'-1i;; •~12W\J
<-~ti' IN7• \Nl!!:t>.'7Hlf:i!.£,;;,
@_ 7 FT
-rO MGO ~"Tll.4AJ (,.1 FW6
IN"-.(2,S"'/R -'ii/ 1. 7'> f/!,)
~~~6;)1 ~e,,,-,(,..1 !="IU~ C:,/2Al'J'i=J:.l
(>AA\-.J61'.:>, p1,-J1',IS1t 1,M\-fTG: (1.s-yR._-
l;c,T1'lJM ()C: "f~~ ~~ T'rT
.4-, q. s-~,
3 ~ -~ > 8 0 .c Q)
E ~
>, ~ I/} 0
Reviewed by: R.G.#
J:\standardlforms\Field Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
Q) ~ CQ 8 C. U) 'C
:E S! Comments
I-J: ~ ~ 0
]... "1.. y'/ .-,'2E,-Jc..ik"
-----------
Geosyntec C>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: Page of I
Site Name:
Boring 1.0.: Date Started; ...,__l ..... 1
1
....,1$,.....l .,_,.1
1
:..,.,,-------
Date Completed: !~ JL .. t'Pf'l .. -2
Geologist/Eng.:
Drilling Company:
Borehole Dlameter: __ -=~ ... ':l ........ l_,xe""""1..,:+___.& .... v-t .... r ... ,-+-l---
Borehole Depth: 1, s-P --------------Dr i Iii n g Method: PA:c~f:!9i:=-:So ;;,10
Comments: V\/ ~1:::, 52..~'2.u," WIO"I, "'5 ,svf' Depth to Water: NI A
(rvrowl
~ = .l!! Cl)
l .E E QI a. F
E 111 (/)
~3.G
Reviewed by:
.5 co -l m
Lithologic Description
~~E: <;.1«..-ry ANff' 7,., vi:;a.,r F~ ~ ,r'"',r:r~u
~(1t:l.)AL s;o)L..,' ~1.MolS"T , ~UH-~E.r,{~v,.-
Y)I..T'<> S/c.)51'-"ri '1"1-"'E. 'ib v~4i "'!,\,/IS 1.two[Jl"I')
1"f' (?~ C'f\(le,a,v/'·Tc H-Dll-1"2.IIN ,1--T 't.,<;-
Cf.4,.,4 '\)(1-t~: it..Ji'"fl l,,,..)~"'T"H~Rli'O ~4.lvO !10;1 eS"
DAl!DT4 ~Wt, S.7:i.1.!'_~ · fJ I//, '-L•/ "'-~'T,tli:iU°
~,...,i..c , PI/\X.lll-\ '-"
------------------------
J:lstandard\forms\Fleld Forms 21 .xlsx\Sed boring Log
0, ~ _g > .2 ~ 0 ..c E o:'.
>-';fl. (/)
R.G.#
Cl) ~ 111 "Cl C. 0 U) (.) "Cl
~ 111 Cl)
I-:r:
~ ~ 0
Comments
1'L f'.rr "T ,Z ~NC I-\
lr vfo> y l-1.~p. D
01 t,.C,J\,/(,,.
-----------
Geosyntec t>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: 5Cq <a 3.'-1 Page \ of _ ___.I __ _
Site Name: \/\I!:\ 11~ M~SA MIU-(BLA,../0111.,)c,,) Date Started: 11 ! ~] \'L
Boring I.D.: TPl'Z.-~ Date Com plete_d,_: .....u.._:...:.I~\ l:i:/:, "l.:================
Geologist/Eng.: -:s. w.oia.ivc.12. Borehole Diameter: '%..'"\ 11\lc..l'l !$'-'c,"-IE'T
Drilling Company:_____________ Borehole Depth: 7, s F"':J
Drilling Method: _f?....._Avt.A__.__.-\o._e. ____ -:s-_..o ___ ~_,"""o______ Depth to Water: ___ .;..N:.i.l.:;..:A.__ _____ _
Comments: N33:. !:i2.Z-'f':1 • w 10'1, s I ~W" (NU>~)
"iii 2:
t ~ Q) .!: E Q) a, I= C c..
E 111 en
Reviewed by:
.5
(0
~ in
Lithologlc Description
'il€~1~1-'3.011,..: OGt-i!.6, ,-Ac,l~T, Y~~1~i.4 '11H,
( sya..-1.//'7 ro s/'-} s11--ry i=,,..,c 7'b vE/Z."f .,:,Ne,
~A/VO (.SMl.
• co.._,.,.,,,,1._,, i:z.vcrr'-F."1'~ """T :z..o F"T
°t>Al:c;n'A ~4'.>D!)•rc.."'/i,;
J.i1«.,,II .. '( "'->l. .... ~1<:!El!:O
,;,.,r,2c;N\y1_ ... l'l\1,4
'O,o.tco-m 5,._r,JD!.7'c.>..i
------------------------
J:\standard\forms\Field Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
Cl f Q) ~
~ Ill -0 c.. 8 VI 0 -0 15 ~ 111 Comments .c Q) Q)
[ a:: I-::c
~ en ~ en 0 <t
0
2.2. f'.'1 ,tt.ir,Jc~
R.G.# -----------
Geosyntec t>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: ScoCo!,o..\ Page I of I
Site Name: w1-kre M6SA-MU ... .c. ... (BLANOJ1"t,) Date St-a-rt .... ed __ : __ -_-_~,'-'di-;~::;;..""'11.;::2;:..,-_______ _
Boring I.D.: :re 1'2. -10 Date Completed: __ l1..1.l+/ ~'sS ..... I ::..;:1-Z....::;;.._ _____ _
Geologist/Eng.: ::r. wM.r,.),e:a.. Borehole Diameter: Yi INCH 'l!;Hc.',ASJ'
Drilling Company:_____________ Borehole Depth: q, S" EI
Drilling Method: _ _;;t?ACa......_1£.J""'"·W=-€_:S ...... c"-"~"'"''.::r:P'-----~ Depth to Water: ___ N__._!A-_______ _
Comments: N~~. '52.4'=><::{ w 109. 51'2.£.o· ( tv$jW)
iii C:
t .s QI .E E QI QI ;:: 0 C. E co Cl)
1"2.1
Reviewed by:
.5
<D
j
ID
Lithologic Description
..SUAr.A'-6. : S.11...·q AivF.:. .,.-.._ vE.<2'/ A'-'I. ~'""" , ~-~
flt:,'!>, D\..IA~: D~!>6., MC.;.1~"T I y~i:,wo\ ~ tl-li:C
( S'yfl..-'1/r.,, -ro S/b) 51~-r•/ r-Ji,.,~ -ni V/Sll-'t Ft"-'~
$ANO (!.M)
'ToP p~ C4!2.~AJAl'T_-ftv"'-1"UW,
INTO "'-r-A~i;t&.t, !.A.pJt)\'"'?IW~
lli>E~.i.n,.,,~p S,12.,,-,~ r=,,..~ ~~l"'l!O .,..., (2..li'/ • '61~ .,.u fs/i } j
~~, OF-" "Tl-41:. '"Tra~"r f.11,
4i c:1,S" FT
------------------------
J:\standard\forms\Field Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
0) ~ 0 ..J (I)
.Q 8 0 .c (I)
E a:::
>, :,!;! Cl) "
R.G.#
QI fl co "O a. 8 UI "O
~ l3 :c (/) ~ <(
0
Comments
I 2.. i:::-r T12-&.il \-\'
~ vlit/2.'f ~M,t.J.>
DI &c,1t-J (.,..
-----------
Geosyntec t>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: --=§::.0< .... P~C .... a .... >1-'-.i...l ---------Page I of I
Site Name: k,,J+[[€ {""Pr,!) MILL C t2,t.A,vpJ111&} Date Started: \ \ )-ci-..-l 1-=-"2..---
Boring I.D.: :re,:1.-1\ Date Completed: ---=-'':....JIL...'1.:..ilu.!.=.'Z. ______ _
Geologist/Eng.: ""S . we:&:i,, Borehole Diameter: '2,.1...I INCM. &x~1= I
Drilllng Company:_____________ Borehole Depth: \"2... .o E:I
Drilling Method: _...:W=..i)=.'-uli;.l:t.9.i..f:___;-:S~C)...._...:"\::.l1.::.:0:....-__ Depth to Water: NIA.
Comments: N?:>':b 5'1..,S'/7 .. " WI 0'1 . 510"1 re ( cJ 2;:,w)
1 .5
£ Q) <D
Q, .5 E ._
Q) Q) i= I C Q. E 0
~ iii
Lithologic Description
~~1:.: SIL.T\/ F=INE 7~ ve.f2'/ AI\IE S4.ro, e,~mH
!2~10~ ... SQI :_: bEtJ\e, M0\1"1, 'J""cL.owitH Rt:[)
(~'ilL' ~,"~" <;fr.) (l~,.t FwE "f'o Vl<.f'Oy ,..,..,~ \A;.JI:) f-.MJ
r.P OF CA'1~"'r+-t" µ,,p.,1,., ... ...,.,.. ~.o r==,,
C.1411,"(,.,; ,.,...I> vu1:,A-T,-."'.c1<.:, -1:..,...t>f'To ,vi;:
./Q :!,.~l=T I""=,----------PA"'C)"'T,'.>. SANl>!;.7pl'I"'
i-J.1 C,14L'/ WE..,, ~ i:a. ~ .O , ""-6.AK. T I>
(.IIA..,(;O, Pl"'t.K 1-' l,.,f,J.rr~
,le lt.tlFT
~l(OI"-SAAiO~,.;;;:.~;
l'V!o<>E~~l.'i ~,.~co,, 0, wr=A'i. --ro iM~O s.-r,,u,;/~ F;)N~ ,;;.A..OWE'~ ~Dt 7'V-, wflrllE' 7l) R-"~ltM-"'°41"T!'° l!. , ll/tS , flf!_.T.• •. 9 /:~. L _ • .
P.,llT711M c$ ~"1 PJ1
iA, 12, l} ~
Reviewed by: _______________________ _
J:\standard\forms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
Cl ~ .9 Q) .~ > 8 0 .&l Q)
E a::
>, ~ (/} 0
R.G.#
Q) 8 ca "C C. 8 U)
"C
::!: ffl
ln J:
ct ~ 0
Comments
2.'"l r-r T12,E=Jv(.~
"1, VEI'!.'( 14M.o
o, (,€,V\) (r.
-----------
Geosyntec C>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Boring 1.0.:
1,,nkrt;. Mrr"SA, "'1/L<.,. (B.L4NQl.vlr)
TPJ1, -J'L.
Page of \
Date Started: )) I ei j ,~
Geologist/Eng.:
Drilling Company: ____________ _
Date Completed: 11 j i j , 2.
Borehole Diameter:;.. __ 1.._'-l..;....1.;.;w..:c"""H'--... e,u_r...c'4=..E .... :r.._ __ _
Drilling Method: BAqf.i~e ""S"D '!.fo
Borehole Depth: 8,o F:1
Depth to Water:
Comments: N:>:t, 5Z.471J..' Wle>_!,~o~-Z,'f" (~<o?W)
~
:6 .s Ql Q. ..!: E ~ Ql i= a E tl1 en
mo
.E
co
1 al
Lithologic Description
5,JCl~E·, '.11..'T,J RIVE: iD "~" FllvE'. ~I>, 1t Rv1~
jle;~,D.)~\.. !;,QII-', De:"N',,.€ ,...,..,,T, \/f':1..LU,,_,,I~ j2ED
(s~12.. '-l/1p -rv Sh,) .s,1..-ry n .... ~ . ....,.,, v&;a,1 Rv'ii:. ShNO [.s"'CJ
• 1oP Of' C4'2&.J>-JA?t Ho121-Z.o.v AT '2. F'i, (,f/Ao...J!lU-'/
,,.,..C.()M/: ~ V"€..-,>; t:!i..SP <;.'1,.Jo .S'f\JN,;,
Reviewed by: R.G.#
J:\standardlforms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
Comments
~vy 12,<\),J ~111.,-s&.i;
/p i:,-~JJ<.,I,!.
-----------
Geosyntec (>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Page
Date Started:
of
11 I £( .-, ,-i...----
Boring I.D.: Date Completed:
Geologist/Eng.: Borehole Diameter: 1."1 ,,.,c.,+ i;uc.~,;;;_, ;......_....;;;...:..,....:.:...;;_;__=::~....:;;;..,:_ __
Drilling Company: Borehole Depth: 7,.. o ~. _______________ ,
Drilling Method: Depth to Water: N/A:
Comments:
~
ti 2 (il .5 i (il E
0 ii i=
E RI cn
()<JW
Reviewed by:
.5
(C -I III
(S.JON)
Lithologic Description
M"CJ'fi'>,, S.At.JDSn»,.JE :
/·4't,1H-'/ ........... -n-1.;.1.1t.Q, \l','reA'L "Ti> MIE:t:J """flilll,1"" C,. 1 ,:'ll\ll!i,
C..ll.AIN!i,,() P1,-,!llil~ ""~I~ T"' p,,..,~ ('2 . .S.Ve-<Jl2. '7l>t
ce zM'l ~~~~~:--·-·
MUOeAATr.1..,/ >v":/.>"T11 ,;.IZ6PJ S."Tl2DNl.r, ~vw,&
SA,.,,;;,s·N/J~, V'et1..,1 p,., .. ,., '1,.u.--, ( ,.,'Ir>.-Sil~)
Cl ~ ..9 ~ .!:! 0 .c (il
[ a:::
~ (/) C
_____ ...,.. __ ,
?.x>no M OF' T$!>, Pl T
A-1 ?,..c, Fi
-------------------------R.G.#
J:lstandard\forms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
(il s RI 'C C. 8 en 'C
::E RI (il
I-J: en ~ <(
0
Comments
" Pr ,r.z6,.x f~
'1, ur;Ry ~o
o, (,<, i I\) Cr
-----------
Geosyntec t>
consultants BORING LOG
\ Project No.: St..o b~'-\ Page of
Site Name: \tvl-\lT 1:: MG.~llr M11.-L ( P..c..,wolNu) Date Started: I\\ 8 .... , ,-l.----
Boring 1.0.: TP 1'7,-/':f Date Completed: 11 ! ~ / 1 z.
Geologist/Eng.: -s . witliUl IE. 12-Borehole Diameter: '2.. 4 ,.vet+ 'l!,u'-\::.l:1 --=-_...;..--,,,,.;--,,------'----Dr i Iii n g Company: Borehole Depth: 1 , S ,::, --------------Dr ill in g Method: ~c.'t.l-\o€. -SD ~ 10 Depth to Water: N4
Comments! _.._tJ___.?;> .... 1: ........ , =5 __ '2.. ......... '-l'-"!._.)_"_W.;;...:;..al .... 0_4.._,_.15..._0_.3:_Y .... 1..._· ...... c=s .... &-..... 8""'W_) ______________ _
~
:6 .l!l a> 0. .E E a> a> F 0 a. E nl 1/)
014
Reviewed by:
.5
co
~ 0
ai
Lithologic Description
5..>r:11""1.l.C.~: ':.li_'f's/ P,:IN6 -ro """""''/ J"),v,t. S.o..JQ I s,~ ... ,,., Co
~;;:-'" ... ~ o,:;,r>S-6, ""o'=>• 1 'I"".....,...,,,,,. 1t.1SI)
( syfl.-'-l{lr.o To S/b) !.11..:ry A...,,s 7o -,,::.~'/ "''"-'.:. 54NO
I +1<,1Jt.."'j IN lol~-rl+SA~,
F°I""\'$. C.,« .. IN'lo. 0 1 (>,1,;,~l~~.,...,,1"'\.
'isf2. To 'V f '!. \
------------------------
J:\standard\forms\Field Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
O> ~ 0 _J a> > .!:1 8 0 a> .c E 0:::
>, ~ 1/) 0
R.G.#
a> fl lll -g 0. 8 UI -g
::E nl Q) ::r:: I-~ ~ 0
Comments
I/;, Fr -r.ze,.icH
vSP.'f l'\A~O
1~\t,.C..11\J (r
Geosyntec e>
consultants
Project No.;
Site Name:
Boring I.D.:
BORING LOG
Page \ __ ...;.... __
Date Started:
of 111 ~ l-11. ___ _
Date Completed:
Geologist/Eng.: Borehole Diameter;...: __ '2.;::;_.L\.__:l:..::N;.:::t.:..\:!ri........;W.=.::.:~::.:€1::....i...--
Drilling Company: ---------------Borehole Depth: (p. s--F-r
Dr ill in g Method: Mc..1L1~~ -:SP '!.tO --------------'----=----Depth to Water: NI A-
( s c; ow) Comments: N 23:. ~1.!.<.,\0 INJO'}. ':>\\1,,"1•
~
:5 .s Q) ..5 ! Q) E
Q. i=
E ca en
'{;o r
s
Reviewed by:
.£;
<O
~ 0 iii
Lithologlc Description
SJRffitE : s11-71 "t'lNla'. 7V vr=/2.,J AvF.: !:Avi>, (.RAS'.:>, e...i.s1-11!!',
?-iss \i,..J\l.. ~ : 'PE"N-S€ I Mo!~, I '(,a.L-<'.JV,J!~\+ ~ ... c
(SVA?-'-'/v, -n:, s/") 5,11..-r,, ,q.;~ -ro 1,1£,:z-4 ,-:,,-i~ s.,wo{.~
-Co>JTAwJ P~~""fl-.i,ns A, l,s-F'T
-TOP Gf'C CAAl'IQ,vl>,rS: l~C>'2.\-Z.<>IV, (,AAowAL-C,~"-<,-
1-vE~"T"+IU.il: O !.,..,.,..r.,l."""lOl'J• ~ '1--~ FT
-Co.Jrllltv ~ 1ZOO"Tt.i!!'Ti -ro
@ 5, S" f"'T
~t(.<>TA-!>~,Jc :.-ru'.':!!5 ~
µ, l..l+L..-/ .,._.~A,"TI~ ~-0
G<Z,AIN~ C , Pl"-'"'~~ ,....11
------------------------
j:\standard\forms\Field Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
0, ~ Q) s
0 ~ ....J Q) "C
C,) > 8 Cl)
8 "C 'a ::E m Comments .c ~ E I-::t: en ~ >, ::,g <( en 0
0
IS' r--r "Tl2~r'XH
R.G.# -----------
Geosyntec C>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Boring I.D.:
lNHiT~ /V\E~A M\L.1-lBLA.v t>INCt)
"TP 11--llD
Page of \
Date S-ta-rte_.d_: --l ii ~ l It
Date Completed: __ \;.;..I _,_b..-;....,:11'--''2.::._ _____ _
GeologisUEng.: Borehole Diameter: '2.'-\ 1,,vc\4 ~vc.1(:.1: ,-
Borehole Depth: U;, ~ er Drilling Company: --------------Depth to Water: ___ .;..N_./"""'A.;..._ _____ _
(S.L10E)
Dr i Iii n g Method:
Comments: N '.31, :,'Z. '!:>Z.'7'"
= I (I) C. .5 E (I) (I) i= 0 Q, E 111 Cl)
~
Reviewed by:
Lithologic Description
~!"'AU:; ;, I '-'TV r-:wi.. 1.1 vr..fl..y -1/V1i: _ 1"t>, !a
€().~llt:ll~I.. ':>011..: Olf,,JILE, /V\0!57, ve:t..1..uvvr\1,t a.r.:.o
(Sy~·'l/~'"f"O ~/t,,,) !'>rt..-r'I RM~ 7l.) v"<b./ ~'"'IS-.\,M,IS,
~""
'OA.t::crrA .sA,,Jo.s.;oNE:
14-lbl-k,.'f WEA°Tl-fei'~C I "'-'E ..... ~ TC .... ,.o '5.To&Ql..(,-
\q,v~ C:,'2'°"t""'&:01 PIN~\~ "vvt-ll'TE, ( Sy(2.-'iJ(I
------------,,--------------
j:\slandardlforms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
Cl ~ .9 § 0 'a .c ~ E >. :,!;! Cl) 0
R.G.#
(I)
(I) (J 111 "O C. 8 U) "O
:::!E m I-::c Cl) ~ <
0
Comments
IY e, l~~(\jc..h-
~ \I ,Slit'! 14A~ 0
01c'.r<..1N t.,.
-----------
Geosyntec t>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.: Sc.o<o~i-t -.....aa-=.aa...a. ....... _;_ ____ .,-------,,-....
Site Name: t,y1+m ::: MflA M ILL L P,LA/JQllv'l,-)
Boring I.D.: :IP 1 'l. -13:
Geologist/Eng.: ::;r. k'.V~l2,µf.12
Page \ of ~
Date Started: f I IS I Ii.
Date Completed! __ J.Ji, ..... 1 ........ 1,..:.:t._ _____ _
Borehole Diameter: _ __;2-~i:f-.,_1 AJ_,'L..,):l...._ .... i:, ... ~ .... & ... l?=-ta ... I---Drilling Company: ____________ _
Drilling Method:
Borehole Depth: ____ >....,·_S........;.t=_:r....._ ___ _
Depth to Water: ___ _.i.;N:::..1IL..:AL--------
Comments:
cii i ~ ..!: Q) C. E Q) Q) 0 a. i=
E n,
Cl)
,910
Reviewed by:
'r,J 1 ti. SI o t,z<::0 ( N R 6)
£
(.0 .... Lithologic Description j
tD
ti,)/).-: ../1
PAjl,0::(4 SA"-' 1;>n'.qlll£ µ,~LY wGA-'T">+f=JZ.,:.o, '""~ .... "-T..-, Mr;:..:, STa,,,_,t,.., <'''"':
C,.,c/.ll rvrE•"1 />l,vlLl~l-l W1~i"Tc ·rc, y0J-frT1~ (7..!"'/rz.-8/'I 70 Ii/,)
@Z,oPt'~ (l~ .,..~ 71? '~-~ Dl\.l!.OJJ.\. 111 • .tt,~Ti>.\JF •
1 f~D1'.P.A7!f 1,,..,;,o,,1;.i.;."1~1>, _5-rtLutvC.., !=1µ!$ C.~w
~O~To;.Jtcc, v·,;:.<..,j r"fl<..6 l P.,...c.vJ L1.,5\/• ;y/:,
bC117u.r., or:: -rf:~.., Pl'T
A, ,.~· ,;--r,
------------------------
J:lstandard\forms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
0) Q) fl _g ~ [ g? 'O 0 U) (J 8 (.) 'O '§ m Comments ~ ~ .c I-J: [ ~ ~ ~ Cl) 0
0
,~ P1' ,r.l~,..JCH
1 \.1~~1 /41\(<f)
'!.I O I ("<.j lAJ ?-
R.G.# -----------
Geosyntec t>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Boring 1.0.:
t,y1fJ'f'~ Mf;SA /v)t,L..t.. (rtJANDIN<r)
:rPt2 -12
Page of )
Date Started: 11
1
1 11 ,
1
.z.
1
,.,
Date Completed: t L~ __ s-
Geologist/Eng.:
Drilling Company: ____________ _
Borehole Diameter.·_ --=Y:f:;.;.,_ .......... l.;.;NC::;.:.:.H-____ rv ..... t .... t:. ... 1:: ... -_T __
Borehole Depth: 6:,, s-f=°'T
Drilling Method: _ _.P:z'""""'sr ...... " ... 1._..i. .... o"'!ta"---.-c:""'0...._3....._, .._D ___ _ Depth to Water: NI.A
(N3ow) Comments: -Nz,;1:.52-22.2" bJ/Q1. SP'o3S"
~
£ 2 Q)
C. £ E Q) Q) i= 0 C. E n, en
Reviewed by:
.5
(0
~ 0 iii
I
Lithologic Description
?-e:£%€: s, '--7'{ Fl/VE -r1J \/~'/ 1'="/Nf. 54N01 BCZ\.6\-1-
/2$1 ~A/... Solt..-; a;-,..,.st:",,....1>1<!;-r1 ye1.,1...o..,1<.J 2£1> ( '51/l.-
'-t/r.. -ra ,s") ~''"")! Fltv€ 71 v<.P.•/ .:::,,...._ r~ t"~J.
"fo(' of C,,.'18(),-.JI',·,;: \..\uo.•-Zo,.; 1\-, Y ,
(,1~~(.,-G 1,-J TC'
------------------------
J:lstandardlforms\Fleld Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
C) ~ 0 ....J § .!:? 0 & .0 E >, ';!. (/)
R.G.#
Q)
0 Q) n, "C C. 0 C/) (.) "C ; n, Q)
I
~ 0
Comments
tAloJ ~::.~,
ll\P1~
-i VF.:"''/ :-Ji>,(?I)
r:,1 L• <., 1...1 r-
-----------
Geosyntec e>
consultants BORING LOG
Project No.:
Site Name:
Boring 1.0.:
Page of
Date Started: 11 ) ') / 1-z..
DateCompleted: I\ ljJ,1..
GeologisUEng.: Borehole Diameter: ~, i 1• •c,, __ v-,_;..._..:..:.l~V-:..:.""l_'?ai.:V~C.a.:~:.:.€.....17:._ __ _
Borehole Depth: 1. S"" F7 Drilling Company: ____________ _
Drilling Method: Depth to VV ater: tJ I A
Comments:
iii c'.
:5 .2l Q)
C. .5 E Q) Q) F 0 ii E nl (/)
12,PO
.5
(0
w
Lithologic Description
Su11.i::-A(.e.: sr1-T'/ Fl"'~ 7(1 v6'-'f n..,~ $4.vO, s,>v<:,"
A<ll!ir t,,,a,.. .s<>,._;
"'f~t> or c~"'e.""""r~ i#fl.'"J. "1 ,.r ,:-r, ~qC\.,,<>(. , .. 4_.
/r,,, -r• ""E4?"1,E,-.6;> s.,l ...,c:, 'C'7'~ ,._, (
/ D1.1.jt"7A $ r.tJ""";S:·-r, f"f:-
~ l.',r'I ~b~,i..-ct-,,""" M/e~.&-c, S-ro:l!ll ...... t-., PviS {>
.SI\,,.\":>~~/ (~iS 1/,;;L._c.v-../ ('l, S""'j-_!!.Lt...·n,_
'i':urr0,--, o,,:;. ~-r .,,, ,..
I+-.,. I. ) i=,
s
Reviewed by:-----------------------
j:\standard\forms\Field Forms 21.xlsx\Sed boring Log
tio
.3 c:' Q)
.2 > J :g
E >,
Cf) ~ 0
R.G.#
Q) B co "'C C. 8 U)
"'C
~ co Q) J: (/) ~ <C
0
Comments
~t.."' ·> ual .. ,.N,.vr.-
~.<r{"'ivr
l'f r• ,P-EtJC.4
·i vf.:'<. 'f 1-i<\~O
i)I iU,tV(_,.
-----------
Excel Geotechnical Testing, Inc.
"Excellence in Testingn
953 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Project Name:
Project No:
Energy Fuels • Cell SA and SB
574
Client Sample ID: TP12-ll (2.5')
Lab Sample No: 12K026
ASTM C 1:16, D .U:Z. D 154. D lUI, DDl6, D l-187, D4ll8 SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES CrwioSla.Spc,,. C .... irf, •tolll. Concm1.
l;ot, OuillkalioG. A11<11>tfC L1n>1U
t Cobbles
Coarse Fine Ccane Medium Fine Silt Clay
Gravel Sand Fines
--~ • -.... .. GI) ·; ~
>,, -= .. ti
1111 ~ ...
1111 ~ ti =--
100
90
P. 80
70 ~ 60 ~
50
40
30 1
20 i.:
10
0
1000
11"
l
Sieve No.
3•
Size(mm)
75
2" so
i.s• 37.5
I" 2S
3/4" 19
3/8" 9.5
#4 4.7S
#10 2.00
#20 0.8SO
#40 0.425
#60 0.250
#JOO 0.150
#200 0.o75
I Specific Gravity ( • ): I
Client
Sample
ID.
TP12-l 1 (2.5')
NOle(s):
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
3• 2· 1.s· 1-,14• 112'1/ll' 114 1110 #20 #40 l/60 #too ,200
I l II -\I 1 · J II
! I I \ i
I
11 !~ t>
11
'""'
~ I
~ I I ~~ I I I I " I I I.+-I ' I
V I" . ~) ~ " llo.
' :" I ~ I ' 100 10 I~~ O.Ql 0.001 0.0
In { )
001
~
%Finer Hrif~ I,~ 80
Particl eter
100.0 70
100.0 "~--i-7
i~ "'
60 'U"Une 100.0 < ---,, ' r, -100.0 • CH or OH ._. so
100.0 \\ ..... = 'A" Line 'Cl " 40 100.0 ..
f fa 100.0 '' // 30
100.0 G;).~-"'>: 20 MHorOH 100.0 Sand(%): 29.8
99.9 Fines (% ): 70.2 10
/\..l..,•1T1a.. / 99.1 Silt(%): MLorOL 0
97.S Clay(%): 0 JO 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 JOO 110 120
70.2 Liquid Limit ( LL )
CoetJ. Unlf. (Cu):
Coeff. Curv. (Cc):
Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Content <No.200 LL PL Pl
No: (%) (%) (-) (·) (·)
12K026 4.2 70.2 NP NP NP ML -Sandy silt
Excel Geotechnical Testing, Inc.
"Excellence In Testing"
953 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Project Name:
Project No:
Energy Fuels -Cell SA and SB
574
Client Sample ID: TP12-4 (1.0')
Lab Sample No: 12K025
AlilM C 136, D Ul, D 1154,
D 114ll,Dlll6,DJ.187,D4318 SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES
! Cobbles
CoaBe Fine Couse Medium Fine Sill Clay
Gravel Sand Fines
.....
~ -... .a .!fl CII :f;
l' .. II • G: ... Cl CII t II ""
100
90 ~-11
80
70 J
60 ~ ,
50 ~
40
30
20
10
ti 0
100 0
12"
Sieve No.
3•
Siu(mm)
1S
2" so
I.S" 37.S
1• 2S
3/4" 19
3/8" 9.S
#4 4.75
#10 2.00
#20 0.850
#40 0.42S
#60 0.2SO
#100 0.ISO
#200 0.07S
lspeclflc Gravity ( -):
Client
Sample
ID.
TPl2-i (1.01
Note(s):
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
3" 2"1.5" 1'!1/4" 112"3/8" 114 MIO #20 MO #60 11100 noo
i II ,, I ~ I I . r\.
\!
' II
I I
~ p
I I ~[;I ,.I'\
I ~ ..... ~ -l/1 I "II II ~
,I' , ~~ ~ ' ~ ~
I I\..." I
100 10 ~~ 0.01 0.()0} 0.
0 nS
0001
~
%Finer Hyci.tmez:; ·~~ 80
100.0 Partlcl~ meter
70
100.0 ,~.,. -
1.--...... "''
60 "U" Line 100.0 ~ -100.0 ,, " ·" Ii: CH or OH ._. so
100.0 ,., y ll "A"Une "Cl
100.0 I\.. J .! 40
f b 100.0 '' // 30
99.9 G~vtl,1,(}:
20 MHorOH 99.8 Saud (o/o): 37.0
99.S Fines(%): 63.0 10
Silt(%):
, ....... ,,
MLorOL 97.2 0
87.6 Clay(%): 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100110 120
63.0 Liquid Limit (LL)
Coeft'. Unlr. (Cu):
Coeft'. Curv. (Cc):
Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL Pl
No: (%) (%) (•) (-) (-)
12K025 4.0 63.0 26 18 8 CL -Sandy lean clay
Excel Geotechnical Testing, Inc.
"Excellence In Testing"
953 Forrest Streat, Roswell, Georgia 30075
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
LAST PAGE
Test Applicability and Limitations:
-The results are applicable only for the materials received at the laborato
representative of the materials at the site.
Storage Policy:
-Uncontaminated Material: All samples ( or what is left) will be arch·
Thereafter the samples will be discarded unless a writt uest for ext
sample per day will be applied after the initial 3 month atn,..,.01>-.n,mri.d
for a period of 3 months from the date received.
ed storage is received. A rate of $1.00 per
-Contaminated Material: All samples (or w._,,1a.1:1u~J
Thereafter, the samples will be returned
extended storage is received. A rate of< 1
archived for a period of 3 months from the date received.
r his/her designated receiver unless a written request for
will be applied after the initial 3 months storage.
Temp-l.utPap-llK05
APPENDJXF
Chemical Resistance Charts
ATTACHMENT D
() Stantec
August16,2019
File: 233001001
Attention: Ms. Kathy Weinel
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Blvd., Suite 600
Lakewood Colorado 80228
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
3325 South Timberline Road Suite 150, Fort Collins CO 80525-2903
Reference: Conceptual Cover Design for White Mesa Uranium Mill Proposed Cells SA and SB
Dear Kathy,
This letter provides a summary of the conceptual cover design for the Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
(EFRI) White Mesa Uranium Mill proposed Cells SA and 58 (cells designed by others). The conceptual
cover design is based on the approved rock armor cover design (the "Existing Cover Design") set out in
Appendix D to the EFRI Reclamation Plan Revision 3.2b and referenced in the EFRI Reclamation Plan,
Revision 5.1 B dated February 2018.
The plan view for the reclamation of Cells SA and 58 is shown on Figure 1. The cover slope for Cells 5A
and 58 is designed at a 1.2 percent slope. The external side slopes of the Cells 5A and 58 embankments
will be graded to 5:1 (horizontal:vertical) as required for reclamation.
The cover system for Cells 5A and 58 is the Existing Cover Design. The cover system will have a minimum
thickness of 6.25 feet, and will consist of the following layers listed below from top to bottom:
• Layer 4 -3 in (7.6 cm) Rock Armor
• Layer 3 -2 ft (61 cm) Frost Barrier Layer (random fill)
• Layer 2 -1 ft (30.5) Radon Barrier (compacted clay)
• Layer 1 -Minimum 3 ft (91.4 cm) Platform Fill (random fill)
Please contact me if you have questions regarding this letter or need additional information.
Best regards,
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
~~-117 lj};vt,D
Melanie Davis P.E.
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Office: 970-212-27 49
Mobile: [phone]
[e-mail]
Attachments: Figure 1
I
~
,a ! I
~I
8 oi,
~ ;;:
j
.!, ~ 1l ,;!-
8 ~ ;:,.
1 I i 1 ~ ?'
/
I
I
r
I
I
/
/
\ \ I I I (.1' 0
I \
SEDIMENTATION BASIN
CELL 1 DISPOSAL AREA
I
I
I
~
I
I
• I
I
I
I
I
I
I-MILL SITE BOUNDARY
I
r
I
BLACK MESA RD
II ~ RESTRICTED AREA BOUNDARY
(2018)
~_: __ · . ~-~'!#-------------(
I
"-.. PROPOSED FINAL FOOTPRINT //
""'--FOR TAILINGS CELLS AND
CELL 1 DISPOSAL AREA l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,
I ""-PROPOSED RESTRICTED AREA BOUNDARY
L------------------------------------~
t--i--------------------1----1---1---l~I~£"!;~ WM' DO'O.Ol'ID JHltOUCtt Oft ~now or Jltl(II"'(~ ctfOiNtCRll40' ~ ~ r---r-------------------+--+---l---l~l~~ =~l~~H('°?'~ ,--;-------------------+--+--+---,~~:c~~~r~l()~:i~: """""" an.u 10w, /: mpc1 =-• """,,.I'" t--t-------------------.l---1----1----1=:z o~~~°':~~~~
I
I
I
DESIGNED BY M DAVIS 02-19
DRAWN BY K REED 02-19
CHECKED BY C STRACHAN 02-19
APPROVED BY M DAVIS 02-19
PROJECT MANAGER M DAVIS 02-19
l I
I A J-".""""-J----C,:EL:-L--:5-A/-:-5-8-C-ON-C-EP-TU_A_L -RE_C_LA-MA_TI_ON-DE-S-IGN-----t-KR--t-MD-J-02---,9-J:f~ or~:=IHQ Nff~rt:~Stt,4T
1.R;~;--------'---o-,s-C-RIP_T_IO_N _______ --4_T.::.EC:.::H-1--E.::.N:..G-1-.::.0:..AT.::.E:.....,~~~~~'=l~~~Nff
i etNERGY FUELS CLIENT APPROVAL
CLIENT REFERENCE NO.
LEGEND:
EXISTING GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR AND
ELEVATION, FEET (SEE REFERENCE)
-5605 --FINAL GR.\OING SURFACE CONTOUR AND
ELEVATION. FEET
EXISTING ROAO
EXISTING WATER
------EXISTING TRAIL
--X --EXISTING FENCE
D EXISTING STRUCTURE
P'ROJE.Cl l.CJCAOOH BLANDING, UTAH
L-T
PROJECT () Stantec WHITE MESA MILL SITE RECLAMATION
T11\.E -RfCVl5!0N A
PLAN VIEW OF RECLAMATION FEATURES ru ,w.1t !>AIE
\VMMCElLSCDVSl FEB 2019
ATTACHMENT E
Attachment E -The hardcopy of the Numerical Modeling Report is bound separately from this
submission.
X ,
I
MW-41 ...
""-ssoo
@
TW4-42
¢
MW-38
-¢-
TW4-40 ...
MW-5 • TW4-12
0
TWN-7 <>
PIEZ-1
Q
hypothetical 'leak' location
estimated perched groundwater flow path
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
2nd quarter 2019 water level
contour and label in feet amsl
estimated dry area
temporary perched monitoring well
installed April, 2019
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
perched monitoring well
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
perched piezometer
RUIN SPRING o seep or spring
NOTES: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-4, TW4-11, 1W4-19, 1W4-20, 1W4-21, TW4-37, 1W4-39, TW440 and 1W441 are chloroform pumping wells;
TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25 and TWN-2 are nitrate pumpln-9_ welts; TW4-1 1 water level Is below the base of the Burro Canyon Formation
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM,INC.
PROPOSED CELL SA AND 58 MONITORING WELLS AND
KRIGED 2nd QUARTER 2019 WATER LEVELS
(showing locations of simulated hypothetical 'leaks')
WHITE MESA SITE
APPROVED DATE REFERE.NCE H :/718000/hyd rpt201 8/cel15A _ 5BI
DWMRClnterrogatorieslresponses/
RevisedFig~res/UpropwelCS _respoose_rev .srf
FIGURE
6.1 (1)
ATTACHMENT F
""'-ssoo ,-, -®
TW4-42
¢
MW-38
-<:>-
TW4-40 ...
MW-5 • TW4-12
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
2nd quarter 2019 water level
contour and label in feet amsl
saturated thickness estimated
to be less than 5 feet
estimated dry area
temporary perched monitoring well
installed April, 2019
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
perched monitoring well
0 temporary perched monitoring well
TWN-7
~
PIEZ-1
~
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
perched piezometer
RUIN SPRING o seep or spring
NOTES: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-4, TW4-11, TW4-19, TW4-20, TW4-21, TW4-37, TW4-39, TW4-40 and TW4-41 are chloroform pumping wells;
TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25 and TWN-2 are nitrate pumpin-9_ wells; TW4-11 water level is below the base of the Burro Canyon Formation
~
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM,INC.
PROPOSED LOCATIONS OF NEW PERCHED WELLS
TO MONITOR PROPOSED CELLS SA AND 58
(showing kriged Q2 2019 perched water levels)
WHITE MESA SITE
APPROVED DATE REFERENCE H:/718000/hydrpt2018/
RevisedFinalFigures/UpropwelC5_rev.srf
FIGURE
38
ATTACHMENT G

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF NEW
TAILINGS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
CELLS 5A AND 5B FOR THE WHITE
MESA URANIUM MILL

December 2019

arcadis.com
PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT OF
NEW TAILINGS CELL
5A AND 5B FOR THE
WHITE MESA
URANIUM MILL

Prepared for:
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI)

Prepared by:
Arcadis Canada Inc.
121 Granton Drive, Suite 12
Richmond Hill, Ontario L4B 3N4
Tel [phone]

Our Ref.:
351418-000

Date:
December 2019

This document is intended only for the use of
the individual or entity for which it was
prepared and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from
disclosure under applicable law. Any
dissemination, distribution or copying of this
document is strictly prohibited.

Prepared by

Laura Guerra-Reyes Environmental Specialist

Reviewed by
Arnon Ho Health Physicist

Approved by

Douglas B. Chambers, Ph.D.
Vice president; Senior Scientist Risk and Radioactivity;
Director Technical Knowledge & Innovation –Radiation
Services

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill
arcadis.com
351418-000 ES-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI) operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill (hereafter referred to as
the “Mill”) in San Juan County, Utah, approximately 6 miles (9.6 km) south of the city of Blanding. The Mill
is located on a parcel of land and mill site claims covering approximately 5,415 acres. The Mill is licensed
by the State of Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control (DWMRC) to process uranium
ore and selected alternate feed materials.
Arcadis Canada Inc. (Arcadis) completed a dose assessment for EFRI in support of the license amendment
application for construction of additional Tailings Management System (TMS) cells (Cells 5A and 5B) for the
Mill. The most recent version of MILDOS-AREA (version 4.02) was used to estimate the dose commitments
that could potentially be received by individuals and the general population within 50 miles (80 km) radius
for processing of conventional ores and alternate feeds. The assessment was prepared for scenarios in
which Colorado Plateau (0.2% U3O8 and 1.5% V2O5), Arizona Strip (0.6% U3O8 only) ores and alternate
feed materials from various sources are processed at the Mill.
The scope of the dose assessment was not intended to reconfirm the dose from the Mill as a whole or past
actual operating years of the Mill, which have been estimated in previous MILDOS-AREA models submitted
by EFRI or prepared by DWMRC in 2007 and 2018, respectively. The purpose of the current model and
report is to estimate the difference in dose that could be received by individuals and the general population
in two different cases, specifically, between the case of the TMS as currently constructed, and the case of
construction and operation of two proposed additional TMS cells (Cells 5A and 5B). For comparison
purposes, EFRI selected a reasonable conservative operating condition, representing an expected range
of ores, alternate feed materials, and Mill throughput rates, which was used as the basis for modelling both
TMS cases. For the purposes of this report, the two cases or conditions to be compared were identified as
“phases,” and are described in the paragraph below.
For purposes of modeling, Mill operations have been separated into two phases. Phase 1 involves the
continued use of TMS Cell 1 for solution evaporation, Cell 2 and Cell 3 inactive with at least interim soil cover
(i.e., at least the first layer of random fill, and possibly additional layers of the full final cover) over the entire
area and Cell 4A and Cell 4B active (i.e., being used for disposal of tailings solids and solution evaporation).
Phase 2 involves continued use of TMS Cell 1 for solution evaporation; Cell 2, Cell 3, Cells 4A and 4B inactive
with at least interim soil over the entire area; and Cell 5A and Cell 5B active for disposal of tailings solids and
solution evaporation.
Radionuclide emissions were based on measured data, as for example included in the Mill’s Semi-Annual
Effluent Reports (SAERs), combined with hours of operation.
Table ES-1 provides a summary of the source terms included in Phases 1 and 2 of the development of new
TMS cells.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill
arcadis.com
351418-000 ES-2
Table ES-1 Source Terms Included in Phases 1 and 2
Source Term Phase 1 Phase 2
Mill Area included included
Ore Pads included included
Cell 2 inactive/at least interim
soil cover
inactive/at least interim
soil cover
Cell 3 inactive/at least interim
soil cover
inactive/at least interim
soil cover
Cell 4A and 4B active Inactive/at least interim
soil cover
Cell 5A and 5B not constructed active

The wind erosion and radon release rates from the tailings cells (active and with at least interim soil cover)
were modelled by using a conservative approach.
Each active TMS cell was modelled to have an active exposed (non-solution covered) tailings solids area
assumed to be 20% of the total area of each active cell, since it is not possible to predict the distribution of
uncovered tailings between the active cells at any given time, with the remainder of each active cell assumed
to be covered by tailings solutions. Radon emissions from the active tailings cells were estimated at
56 pCi/m2s, being the weighted average of the radon emissions from the non-solution covered tailings solids
area and the solution covered area, consistent with the risk assessment for EPA’s Final Rule for Radon, August
1986, and were assumed to occur over the entire area of each active TMS cell. Emissions from the TMS cells
with at least interim cover (i.e., either interim or full/partial final soil cover) were assumed to occur over the
entire area of each TMS cell; assuming, a total annual radon release rate of 20 pCi/m2s (i.e., maximum
allowable radon-222 emissions to ambient air from an existing uranium mill tailings cell constructed to 40 Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR) 61.252 standards). Actual radon emission rates from the TMS cells either
interim or full/partial final soil cover have historically been well below 20 pCi/m2s, so this assumption is also
considered to be conservative.
The uranium ores from the Colorado Plateau and Arizona Strip contain only background levels of thorium-232
(Th-232) and hence, the only source of thoron (Rn-220) is from the Alternate Feed Materials which vary as a
percentage of the feed to the Mill by year but typically represent about 3% of the Mill feed. Moreover, with a
half-life of about 56sec, Rn-220 has a very short diffusion half-length as the result of its short decay half-life,
does not represent a material contribution to dose, and is not considered further in this report.
The total annual effective dose commitments (including radon, as Rn-222) estimated using MILDOS-AREA
were compared to the Utah Administrative Code R313-15-301(1)(a) requirement that the dose to individual
members of the public shall not exceed 100 millirem (mrem)/year (yr) (radon included). For the typical
conservative scenario during Phase 1, the maximum total annual effective dose commitment was calculated
to be a maximum effective dose of 8.2 mrem/yr for an infant at the nearest potential residence (Table B.1) and
is about 8.2% of the R313-15-301(1)(a) limit of 100 mrem/yr (radon included). For the typical conservative
scenario during Phase 2, the maximum total annual effective dose commitment was calculated to be a
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill
arcadis.com
351418-000 ES-3
maximum of 8.9 mrem/yr effective dose for an infant at the nearest potential resident (Tables B.5) and is about
8.9% of the R313-15-301(1)(a) limit of 100 mrem/yr (radon included) to an individual member of the public.
In addition, MILDOS-AREA-calculated 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments (excluding radon) were
compared to the 40 CFR 190 criterion, which is 25 mrem/yr to the whole body (excluding the dose due to
radon) and 25 mrem/yr to any other organ to any member of the public (EPA 2002). The 40 CFR 190 doses
were also used to demonstrate compliance with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) goal set out
in R313-15-101(4) (10 CFR 20.1101(d)) (i.e., the ALARA goal is to demonstrate that total effective dose
equivalent to the individual member of the public likely to receive the highest total effective dose equivalent
will not exceed 10 mrem/yr (absent of the radon dose), to the extent reasonably achievable).
For the typical conservative scenario during Phase 1, the 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments were
estimated to be a maximum of 3.51 mrem/yr for a teenager at the nearest potential residence, BHV-1
(Table B.9) (i.e., dose to the bone) and is about 14% of the 40 CFR 190 dose criterion of 25 mrem/yr. For the
typical conservative scenario during Phase 2, the 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments were estimated to
be a maximum of 2.94 mrem/yr for a teenager at the nearest potential resident, BHV-1 (Tables B.13) (i.e.,
dose to the bone) and is about 11.8% of the 40 CFR 190 dose criterion of 25 mrem/yr.
Further, the 40 CFR 190 annual effective dose commitments demonstrate compliance with the R313-15-
101(4) (10 CFR 20.1101(d)) ALARA goal of 10 mrem/yr (radon excluded) to the individual member of the
public likely to receive the highest total effective dose equivalent (the maximum total effective dose equivalent
[radon excluded] for both phases, at 0.54 mrem/yr and 0.58 mrem/yr respectively, for an infant at BHV-1.
As discussed above, the two modeled cases or phases, Phases 1 and 2, were based on the same operating
conditions, with the only difference being the introduction of two new TMS cells. As evidenced by the reported
modeling results, the difference between the two cases was minimal, and both Phases 1 and 2 comply with
the requirements of R313-15-301(1)(a), 40 CFR 190 and the ALARA goal set out in R313-15-101(4).

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com i 351418-000
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ ES-1
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................... AC-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Objective ...................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.3 Approach ..................................................................................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Contents of this Report ................................................................................................................ 1-3
2.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................................... 2-1
3.0 RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 General Information About MILDOS-AREA Version 4.02 ........................................................... 3-1
3.2 The Use of MILDOS-AREA in this Assessment .......................................................................... 3-1
4.0 ORE/ALTERNATE FEED PROCESSED ............................................................................................ 4-1
5.0 SOURCE TERMS ................................................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1 Point Sources .............................................................................................................................. 5-3
5.1.1 Grizzly/SAG Mill ............................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.2 Yellowcake Stacks ........................................................................................................... 5-4
5.1.3 Vanadium Stacks ............................................................................................................ 5-7
5.1.4 Leach Demister Stack ...................................................................................................... 5-7
5.2 Area Sources ............................................................................................................................... 5-7
5.2.1 Calculations of Annual Dust Loss .................................................................................... 5-8
5.2.2 Ore Pad ............................................................................................................................ 5-9
5.2.3 Tailings Cells .................................................................................................................. 5-10
5.3 Meteorological Data................................................................................................................... 5-12
5.4 Population Data ......................................................................................................................... 5-13
5.5 Uranium Mill Source Emission Rates ........................................................................................ 5-14
6.0 RECEPTORS ...................................................................................................................................... 6-1
7.0 RADIATION DOSE ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................ 7-1
7.1 MILDOS-AREA Results ............................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.1 R313-15-301(1)(a) Regulatory Compliance ..................................................................... 7-1
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com ii 351418-000
7.1.2 40 CFR 190 Regulatory Compliance ............................................................................... 7-2
7.1.3 Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1
and Phase 2 ..................................................................................................................... 7-3
8.0 KEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................... 8-1
9.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 9-1
APPENDIX A – HISTORY OF MILDOS-AREA ............................................................................................. 1
APPENDIX B – TABLES OF DOSE COMMITMENT RESULTS .................................................................. 1

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com iii 351418-000
TABLES
Table ES-1 Source Terms Included in Phases 1 and 2 ......................................................................... 2
Table 4.1 Ores/AF Processed (tons) ............................................................................................... 4-1
Table 5.1 Point Sources - UTM Coordinates and Physical Characteristics ..................................... 5-1
Table 5.2 Grizzly Hourly Emissions Rate Based on SAER for the Representative Window ........... 5-4
Table 5.3 Radon Emissions from the GB Stack ............................................................................... 5-4
Table 5.4 Yellowcake Dryers Hourly Emissions Rate Based on SAER for the Representative
Window ............................................................................................................................ 5-6
Table 5.5 Packaging Stack Hourly Emissions Rate Based on SAER for the Representative
Window ............................................................................................................................ 5-6
Table 5.6 Parameter Values for Calculation of Annual Dusting Rate for Exposed Tailings ............ 5-8
Table 5.7 Ore Pad Radon Emissions ............................................................................................... 5-9
Table 5.8 Status of TMS Cells in Phase 1 ..................................................................................... 5-10
Table 5.9 Status of TMS Cells in Phase 2 ..................................................................................... 5-10
Table 5.10 Radioactive Particulate Emission Rates ........................................................................ 5-10
Table 5.11 Radioactive Particulate and Radon Emission Rates (Ci/yr)........................................... 5-14
Table 6.1 Receptor Locations .......................................................................................................... 6-1

FIGURES
Figure 5.1 Point Source Locations .................................................................................................... 5-2
Figure 5.2 Wind Direction (blowing from) ........................................................................................ 5-12
Figure 5.3 Average Wind Speed (m/s) ............................................................................................ 5-13
Figure 6.1 Receptor Locations .......................................................................................................... 6-2

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com AC-1 351418-000
ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS
AF Alternate Feed
AF(B) Alternate Feed-Bulk
AF(C) Alternate Feed-Containerized
ALC Allowable Concentration
ANL Argonne National Laboratory
ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable
ARCADIS Engineering Consulting Firm
AS Arizona Strip
ASCII American Standard Code for Information Interchange
Avg. average
Bi-210 bismuth-210
CCD Counter Current Decantation
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CP Colorado Plateau
DCF Dose Conversion Factor
DWMRC Utah Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control
EFRI Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
EW Process Emission Factor
F Radon Release Rate
FES Final Environmental Statement
FMRI Fansteel Metal Resources, Inc.
FS annual frequency of occurrence of wind group S
ft feet
ft3 cubic feet
g grams
g ore grams of ore
GB Grizzly Baghouse
GPS Global Positioning System
GUI Graphical User Interface
hr hours
ICRP International Commission on Radiological Protection
lbs pounds
km kilometers
kts knots
LDS Leach Demister Stack
the Mill White Mesa Uranium Mill
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
NESHAPs National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
NYC North Yellowcake Dryer
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com AC-2 351418-000
NUREG NRC Regulatory Guide
m meters
m2 square meters
m2s square meters per second (radon flux rate)
mrem millirem
MPC Maximum Permissible Concentration
Pb-210 lead-210
pCi picocurie
Po-210 polonium-210
Ra-226 radium-226
Rn-222 radon-222
RS Resuspension rate for wind group S
S Radionuclide Emission Rate
SAER Semi-Annual Effluent Report
Sec second
SFC Sequoyah Fuels Corporation
SYC South Yellowcake Dryer
TGLM Task Group on Lung Dynamics Lung Model
Th-230 thorium-230
TMS Tailings Management System
tpy tons per year
U3O8 triuranium octoxide (“Yellowcake”)
Unat natural uranium
U-234 uranium-234
U-235 uranium-235
U-238 uranium-238
V2O5 vanadium pentoxide
VD Vanadium Cartridge Filter Stack
VS Vanadium Scrubber Stack
YCP Yellowcake Packaging
yd3 cubic yards
yr year

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. (EFRI) operates the White Mesa Uranium Mill (hereafter referred to as
the “Mill”) in San Juan County, Utah, approximately 6 miles (9.6 km) south of the city of Blanding. The Mill is
located on a parcel of land and Mill site claims covering approximately 5,415 acres. The Mill was built in 1979
and licensed by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to process uranium ore and
selected alternate feed materials. The Mill began operations in July 1980. In August 2004, the State of Utah
became an Agreement State for the regulation of uranium mills, and primary regulatory authority over the Mill
was assumed by the State of Utah Division of Radiation Control (now Waste Management and Radiation
Control (DWMRC)) at that time.
The Mill is a standard design with both uranium and vanadium circuits and uses the acid leach-solvent
extraction process for uranium recovery from uranium ores and uranium/vanadium ores. Vanadium in
uranium/vanadium-bearing ores is partially solubilized during leaching, and the dissolved vanadium present
in uranium raffinate is further processed for recovery of vanadium before recycling (NRC1979).
The typical ores processed at the Mill include Colorado Plateau (CP) ores and Arizona Strip (AS) ores. CP
ores typically contain a lower concentration of uranium than AS ores. Natural ores were assumed to be in
secular equilibrium. In addition, the Mill receives alternate feed (AF) materials from various sources and in
various forms. Alternate feed materials are not in secular equilibrium, therefore the concentration for each
isotope was estimated as the weighted average concentration of typical AF materials which have been
processed in the Mill.
The following assumptions were used on this compliance assessment.
• Data from Q4-2012 to Q1-2015 was used as a representative window of the current and future
operations in the Mill, because it included processing of CP ores, AS ores and a representative
sample of AF materials.
• CP ore contains an average of 0.2% U3O8 and the AS ore contains an average 0.6% U3O8.
• The activity concentrations of U-238 in CP and AS ores were estimated at 565 pCi U-238/g ore and
1694 pCi U-238/g ore respectively.
• The proposed ore process rate was assumed to be 100,000 tons per year for CP, 50,000 tons per
year for AS and 5275 tons per year for AF.
• AF materials radiological composition was estimated as a weighted average of UF4, CaF2, KOH,
Dawn Mining and Sequoyah Fuels AF materials.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 1-2
1.2 Objective
The objective of this assessment is to estimate the potential annual dose to sensitive receptors located close
to the Mill, with and without the addition of tailings management system (TMS) Cells 5A and 5B. The most
recent version of MILDOS-AREA (version 4.02) was used to estimate the dose commitments that could
potentially be received by individuals and the general population within 50 miles (80 km) radius for processing
of conventional ores and AF materials, in both those scenarios. The receptors were strategically selected to
represent actual, potential and worst-case scenarios and were defined in a pre-consultation with the State.
This dose assessment was prepared in support of the license amendment application for the proposed
development of two new TMS Cells 5A and 5B at the Mill.
1.3 Approach
A typical conservative approach with two phases was included in this assessment. The typical conservative
scenario was defined based on a typical amount of ore processed at the Mill during a representative time
window from Q4-2012 through Q1-2015.
The representative time window was chosen based on the following considerations. This window:
• includes data from South Yellowcake (SYC) Dryer only, which started operations in Q4-2012;
• includes data from eight quarterly stack emission tests over a 2.5-year period (June 2013 was grizzly
only);
• is representative of CP ore processed during the Q4-2012 to Q2-2013 period (approx. 860K lbs U3O8
and 1.5 million lbs vanadium pentoxide (V2O5) produced);
• is representative of AS ore processed during the Q2-2014 to Q1-2015 period (approx. 600K lbs U3O8
produced);
• is representative of AF processed almost continuously over a 2.5-year period (8 out of 10 quarters);
• is based on report reviews where no irregularities were noted during the 8 quarterly stack tests (i.e.,
good test data);
• is based on dryer/packaging feed rates and test data collected during routine operations; and
• includes test data collected during times of processing various combinations of materials (e.g., AF
only, AF plus ore, AF plus ore plus vanadium recovery).
For purposes of modeling, Mill operations have been separated into two phases.
• Phase 1 involves the continued use of TMS Cell 1 for solution evaporation, Cell 2 and Cell 3 inactive
with soil cover over the entire area and the use of Cell 4A and Cell 4B for disposal of tailings solids
and solution evaporation.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 1-3
• Phase 2 involves TMS Cell 1 for solution evaporation; Cell 2, Cell 3, Cell 4A and 4B inactive with soil
cover over the entire area; and the use of Cells 5A and 5B for disposal of tailings solids and solution
evaporation.
For the purpose of this modelling, inactive/soil cover indicates that the TMS cells are not in use for tailings
management or solution evaporation. Further, either interim cover or full or partial final cover has been placed
on the entire area of the cells. For “closed” TMS cells, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Rn-222 emission rate limit of 20 pCi/m2s was used and for “active” TMS cells the contribution from particulates
and Rn-222 were included.
1.4 Contents of this Report
The remainder of this report is arranged into the following sections.
Section 2.0, Regulatory Compliance, provides a description of the regulatory framework pertaining to the
applicable dose limits to members of the public from licensed activities at the Mill.
Section 3.0, Radiation Dose Assessment, describes the method used to estimate the radiation doses to
members of the public and how MILDOS-AREA was used.
Section 4.0, Ore/AF Processed, describes the types and quantities of ore and AF processed at the Mill.
Section 5.0, Source Terms, describes the source terms and source emission rates related to the ore
processing operations and other input parameters required (i.e., meteorological data and population data) for
the MILDOS-AREA runs.
Section 6.0, Receptors, describes the receptors used in the MILDOS-AREA runs.
Section 7.0, Radiation Dose Estimates, provides the dose estimates for MILDOS-AREA runs for the Mill
area (including the ore pads) and each TMS cell.
Section 8.0, Key Findings, provides a summary of the dose estimates for each scenario.
Section 9.0, References, provides a list of reference material used to prepare this report.
Appendix A, History of MILDOS-AREA, describes how the MILDOS-AREA software has evolved,
highlighting some of the key differences between the current updated version 4.2; MILDOS-AREA (ANL
1998a); and the original version of MILDOS-AREA.
Appendix B, Tables of Dose Commitment Results, provide the model outputs of dose for each Phase.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 2-1
2.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
The DWMRC has the regulatory authority over the radioactive materials license issued for the Mill. As
required by Utah Administrative Code R313-15-101(2), the Mill shall, to the extent practical, employ
procedures and engineering controls based upon sound radiation protection principles to achieve
occupational doses and doses to members of the public that are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
Under R313-15-301(1)(a), the licensee is required to demonstrate that the total dose equivalent to individual
members of the public from the licensed operation does not exceed 0.1 rem (100 mrem) in a year (including
radon), exclusive of the dose contribution from natural background and medical sources.
Under 10 CFR 20.1301 (NRC 1991), NRC has adopted the provisions of the EPA environmental radiation
standards in 40 CFR 190 (EPA 2002). This subpart requires that the licensee provide reasonable assurance
that the radiation attributed to Mill operations does not exceed the annual dose of 25 mrem/yr to the whole
body, 75 mrem/yr to the thyroid and 25 mrem/yr to any other organ of any member of the public (in each case,
radon and its daughters excepted). This requirement is also included in R313-15-301(4). In addition, 10 CFR
20.1301 (d) (R313-15-101(4)) sets an ALARA goal on air emissions of radioactive material to the environment,
excluding radon-222 and its daughters, such that the dose to the individual member of the public likely to
receive the highest total effective dose equivalent will not exceed 10 mrem/yr.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 3-1
3.0 RADIATION DOSE ASSESSMENT
3.1 General Information About MILDOS-AREA Version 4.02
The newest version of MILDOS-AREA (version 4.02) has new features and updates compared with the
previous version 3.10. These features include: a) ability to address ores containing Th-232 and its daughter
radionuclides, b) a revised area source model, c) the capability to use current meteorological data provided
by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and d) the ability to perform sensitivity analysis on specific input
parameters.
MILDOS-AREA only considers airborne releases of radioactive materials; releases to surface water and
groundwater are not addressed. Releases of particulates explicitly considered are the radionuclides U-238,
Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 for the U-series decay chain and Th-232, Ra-228, and Th-228 for the Th-series
decay chain. Other radionuclides in these series are implicitly accounted for under the secular equilibrium
assumption. Gaseous releases are limited to consideration of Rn-222 and Rn-220 plus in growth of decay
products.
The transport of model radiological emissions from the point and area sources is predicted using a sector-
averaged Gaussian plume dispersion model. The dispersion model uses the meteorological data provided
by the user and also includes mechanisms of dry deposition of particulates, re-suspension, radioactive decay
and progeny in-growth, and plume reflection. Deposition build-up and in-growth of radioactive progeny are
considered in estimating ground concentrations.
The impacts to humans through various pathways are estimated based on the calculated annual average air
concentrations of radionuclides. The pathways considered in this analysis include: inhalation, external
exposure from ground concentrations, external exposure from cloud immersion, and ingestion of meat and
vegetables.
3.2 The Use of MILDOS-AREA in this Assessment
MILDOS-AREA version 4.02 was used to estimate potential radiation doses to members of the public
estimated from the processing of CP ore, AS ore and AF. (Information about the history of MILDOS-AREA is
provided in Appendix A).
In order to design a conceptual model of the Mill, MILDOS-AREA requires the user to define source and
receptor locations and source emissions. The locations of sources and receptors are defined in MILDOS-
AREA by providing Cartesian coordinates of the source/receptor relative to a reference point. The coordinates
of a point source are entered directly while the user must enter vertex coordinates for an area source.
The coordinates for both point sources and area sources relative to the SYC stack (i.e., the reference point
for the site) were determined by plotting the Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates in Google Earth
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 3-2
Pro (Google 2018) and supplemented by GPS measurements with a hand-held meter. A description of the
TMS is provided in Section 4.0.
The source emissions were calculated using guidance from NRC Regulatory Guide 3.59 (NRC 1987) and
NUREG-0706 (NRC 1980). Radionuclide emission for radioactive particulates and radon are entered directly
for point sources. For area sources, such as the TMS and ore pad, MILDOS-AREA calculates the radionuclide
emission for radioactive particulates and radon based on the release rates and source area.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 4-1
4.0 ORE/ALTERNATE FEED PROCESSED
The typical ores processed at the Mill include CP ores and AS ores. CP ores typically contain a lower
concentration of uranium than AS ores. Natural ores were assumed to be in secular equilibrium. In addition,
the Mill receives AF materials from various sources and in various forms. AF materials are not in secular
equilibrium; therefore, the concentration for each isotope was estimated as the weighted average
concentration of the AF processed.
Based on a representative time window for Mill operations, EFRI estimated a conservative typical amount of
ore and AF materials and the corresponding grade for each individual source of ore or AF that can be received
and processed in the Mill. Table 4.1 shows a representative amount of ores processed in a year and the
grade for each type of material.
Table 4.1 Ores/AF Processed (tons)
Feed Feed (tons) Feed Grade U3O8 Description
AS Ore 50,000 0.6% Natural ore
CP Ore 100,000 0.2% Natural ore
UF4 75 70% AF - container
CaF2 750 4% AF - container
KOH 200 65% AF - container
Dawn Mining 250 1% AF - super sacks
Sequoyah 4,000 1.25% AF - super sacks
Note: The AF materials listed above were chosen to represent a range of AF uranium and radionuclide
contents, and do not indicate the specific AFs that will be processed in any upcoming year. For example, the
Mill plans to process the inventory of AF material from Fansteel Metals Recovery, Inc. (FMRI) in the upcoming
operating years. FMRI is not listed because it is well within the envelope of radionuclide contents represented
by UF4 AF which has high uranium content, and Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (SFC) AF, which has elevated
thorium content.
The activity concentration of the U-238 in the ore is calculated as follows: 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶=𝑂𝑂𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑔𝑔𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑔𝑔𝐶𝐶 𝑔𝑔 𝑈𝑈3𝑂𝑂8𝑔𝑔 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜∗%𝑈𝑈238𝑔𝑔 𝑈𝑈3𝑂𝑂8 ∗𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝑆𝑆 𝑈𝑈238 (Eq. 1)

where,

• Ore Grade (g U3O8/ g ore) = 0.2% for Colorado Plateau Ore and 0.6% for Arizona Strip Ore
• Ratio of g U238/g of U3O8 = 0.848
• Specific Activity of U238 = 3.33 x 10-7 Ci U238/g U238

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 4-2
Using equation 1, the activity concentration of U-238 for CP ore is 565 pCi U-238/g ore. Similarly, the activity
concentration of U-238 for AS ore is 1694 pCi U-238/g ore. In all cases, the ores were assumed to be in
secular equilibrium. For AF materials, EFRI provided the laboratory analytical information regarding the
concentrations for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226, Pb-210 and Th-232. For SFC AF, the average worst-case
radioanalytical composition was used in this assessment.
A separate weighted average concentration was estimated for bulk and container AF materials, and a
weighted average for all AF materials was determined.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-1
5.0 SOURCE TERMS
The radionuclides of concern for the MILDOS-AREA model include: U-238 and its daughters Th-230, Ra-226,
and Pb-210 (which were assumed to be in secular equilibrium in the ore and were specified by analysis for
the various AF materials) and Th-232 and its daughters Ra-228, and Th-228.
The radioactive particulates and radon are emitted from airborne radioactive sources related to dust
generation during ore handling (unloading ore from truck to ore pads and loading ore to the grizzly), point
sources (grizzly, yellowcake stacks, vanadium stack and leach demister stack) and area source dusting from
ore pad stockpiles and the TMS cells. The coordinates of all sources were provided by EFRI. The sources
were located in MILDOS-AREA using the SYC stack as the reference point. Table 5.1 shows the UTM
coordinates and the physical characteristics for all point sources. Figure 5.1 shows the locations (plotted in
Google Earth) of all point sources used in this assessment.
Table 5.1 Point Sources - UTM Coordinates and Physical Characteristics
Stacks Easting Northing Height (m) Diameter (m) Exit Velocity (m/s)
SYC Dryer 632252 4155392 21 0.30 10.36
YC Baghouse 632252 4155407 20 0.46 16.56
Vanadium Dryer 632259 4155393 25 0.91 10.78
Vanadium Baghouse 632274 4155405 16 0.76 12.94
NYC Dryer 632252 4155399 21 0.46 4.51
Grizzly 632278 4155470 6.7 0.46 4.76
Leach Demister 632245 4155415 26 0.91 2.5

The doses to members of the public were estimated for the processing of CP ore, AS ore and AF. Therefore,
the emission calculations are based on the activity concentration of U-238 in the ore, the expected ore grade,
average uranium recovery and the proposed ore process rate. The approaches used to calculate the
emissions from the point and area sources are described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-2
Figure 5.1 Point Source Locations

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-3
5.1 Point Sources
The point sources included in this assessment are the Grizzly Baghouse (GB), SYC Stack, North Yellowcake
(NYC) Stack, Yellowcake Packaging (YCP) Stack, Vanadium Scrubber (VS) Stack, Vanadium Cartridge Filter
(VD) Stack, and the Leach Demister Stack (LDS).
Particulate emissions from the point sources were calculated from the stack emissions reported in EFRI’s
Semi-Annual Effluent Reports (SAERs) for the representative time window (Q4-2012 to Q1-2015), and were
estimated as the median of the hourly emission rate multiplied by the number of hours of operation for each
process. Since the Mill does not operate 100% of the time, the operation times were estimated based on the
daily production rates for every day of operation in the entire representative window and normalized for
yellowcake production for the typical conservative year. This value gives a realistic estimate of the
radionuclide emissions per year that are emitted from the stacks. In addition, the median in this case was
higher, more conservative than the mean. Further, NRC considers the median to be more robust relative to
outliers than the mean. (NRC, 2011)
5.1.1 Grizzly/SAG Mill
The grizzly is the sizing screen through which materials are dropped prior to reaching the conveyor belt that
takes the materials to the SAG Mill. The particulate emissions from the GB stack are from the feed apron
under the grizzly. This area is kept under negative pressure, and the emissions are released through the GB
stack. In accordance with Reg. Guide 3.59, the particulate emissions from the SAG Mill, which is a “wet”
grinding process, are considered to be totally controlled, meaning that no particulates are released from the
SAG Mill itself. Typically, CP and AS Ores and AF-bulk materials (AF(B)) are processed through the
Grizzly/SAG Mill. AF-containerized materials (AF(C)) are not required to be screened through the grizzly and
crushed.
Radioactive Particulate
Emission rates from the GB stack were calculated from the stack emissions reported in EFRI’s SAERs for the
representative window (see Table 5.2) and were estimated as the median of the emission rate multiplied by
the number of hours of operation for each process that used the grizzly.
The calculated hours of operation for the Grizzly/SAG Mill was based on an estimated feed rate of
135 tons/hour. Similar to previous assessments, AF(B) were assumed to be fed through the Grizzly/SAG Mill
at the same rate as ores. Using equation 2 below, the radionuclides emission rates were estimated. 𝑈𝑈238 �𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦𝑦𝑜𝑜�=1.11 ∗10−5 𝑢𝑢𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑠𝑠∗0.485 𝑢𝑢𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑈𝑈238𝑢𝑢𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈∗3600 𝑠𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑜∗1143 ℎ𝑜𝑜𝑦𝑦𝑜𝑜∗1 ∗10−6 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶1 𝑢𝑢𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶= 2.2𝐸𝐸−05 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦𝑦𝑜𝑜

(Eq. 2)
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-4
Table 5.2 Grizzly Hourly Emissions Rate Based on SAER for the Representative Window
Yr Qtr Unat (µCi/sec) U238 (µCi/sec) Th228 (µCi/sec) Th230 (µCi/sec) a) Th232 (µCi/sec) Ra226 (µCi/sec) Pb 210 (µCi/sec)
2012 Q4 1.13E-05 5.49E-06 9.09E-10 1.02E-07 1.02E-09 5.49E-06 5.49E-06
2013 Q2 1.11E-05 5.36E-06 1.32E-09 1.14E-07 2.75E-09 5.36E-06 5.36E-06
2014 Q2 6.40E-06 3.10E-06 7.74E-09 1.40E-06 1.79E-08 3.10E-06 3.10E-06
Median 1.11E-05 5.36E-06 1.32E-09 1.14E-07 2.75E-09 5.36E-06 5.36E-06
Notes
a) Thorium-230 emission rates from 2012 through 2014 were estimated based on measurements provided by
EFRI.
Radon Emission Rates
In accordance with Reg. Guide 3.59, the GB stack’s radon emissions would be less than 10 percent of the
radon emitted from the ore storage pad. For this assessment, it was assumed that 10 percent of radon from
the ore pad is emitted from the GB Stack. Using equation 3, the radon emission from processing AS are
estimated.
Table 5.3 Radon Emissions from the GB Stack
Typical conservative Scenario
Process Rate (tons per year)
pounds per ton grams per pound
Average Radium-226 concentration pCi/g
Ci/pCi Activity Factor*
Radon Release (Ci/yr)
AS 50000 2000 453.6 1694 1E-12 2E-01 1.54E+01 CP 100000 2000 453.6 565 1E-12 2E-01 1.02E+01 AF (B) 4250 2000 453.6 720 1E-12 2E-01 5.55E-01 TOTAL 2.62E+01
𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶𝑔𝑔𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (𝐴𝐴𝑆𝑆)= 50000 𝑈𝑈𝑜𝑜𝑈𝑈𝑠𝑠𝑦𝑦𝑜𝑜𝑈𝑈𝑜𝑜∗2000 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑈𝑈𝑜𝑜𝑈𝑈𝑠𝑠∗453.6 𝑔𝑔𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙∗1694 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑔𝑔∗1𝐸𝐸−12 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶∗2𝐸𝐸−01 =15.4 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑦𝑦𝑜𝑜 (Eq. 3)
5.1.2 Yellowcake Stacks
The Mill has two yellowcake dryers (north (NYC) and south (SYC) yellowcake dryers). During yellowcake
production, the Mill typically operates only one yellowcake dryer at a time. After the yellowcake is dried to the
point it can be packaged, the yellowcake is put into barrels but not sealed. The drying and cooling processes
are completed under negative pressure. The emissions from the drying and cooling process can be released
through the NYC stack, the SYC stack, and the YCP stack. For the typical conservative scenario, emissions
were assumed to be exhausted through the SYC stack only. This reflects the typical operations reported
during the representative window.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-5
Measured Stack Emissions
For the SYC dryer, the YCP, and the GB stack, the measured data, as reported by Tetco and incorporated in
the Mill’s SAERs, was tabulated for each of the 16 samples during the selected window from Q4 2012 through
Q1 2015. Because none of the Tetco sampling dates during the selected window were associated with upsets
or anomalous operating or sampling conditions, all the available data was included. Measurement of every
radionuclide was not required for every point source for every sampling period until late 2014, some data were
available for each of the radionuclides U-nat, Th-228, Th-232, Th-230 and Pb-210 in the SYC and YCP stacks,
and data for U-nat, Th-228, Th-232, Th-230 were available for the GB stack as emissions in uCi/sec.
Calculations were based on the median value for each radionuclide in each stack.
Emissions data from SAER reports in U-nat uCi/hr was converted to U3O8 lb/hr as follows:
U-nat (uCi/sec) x 3600 (sec/hr) x 1x106 (Ci/uCi) x 1.528 E-4 (Ci U238/lb U238) = U3O8 loss (lb/hr)
0.85 lb U238/lb U3O8
This equation assumes that nearly all the uranium mass in U-nat is U-238.
Yellowcake Dryer Throughput
The daily SYC dryer production in pounds (lbs.), which was assumed to be equivalent to daily dryer production
of U3O8 in lbs., was tabulated for every day within the selected window from Q4 2012 through Q1 2015. The
number of days when dryer operation occurred was also tabulated over the entire selected window. Dates
when production was less than 900 lbs. or less (the equivalent of less than one drum of yellowcake) were
excluded from the calculation. Such dates represent conditions when the dryer was not being fired, and there
were no stack emissions, but the yellowcake product hopper may have been emptied for maintenance or
other purposes. A total of 278 daily data points were used to develop the daily dryer throughput. Five data
points were excluded, specifically, the dates when the production was reported as 900 lbs or less because
the dryer was not fired.
The daily dryer throughput was converted to lbs./hr. by dividing by the number of production days times
24 hours per production day.
Dryer yellowcake throughput for entire period (lb) = dryer yellowcake throughput lb/hr
278 dryer operating days in window (days) x 24 (hr/day)
The U3O8 loss factor, that is, the ratio of lbs/hr emitted from the stack to lbs/hr fed to the dryer, was determined
by dividing the measured emissions during stack testing over the selected window in lbs/hr by the dryer
throughput in lbs/hr.
(Eq. 4)
(Eq. 5)
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-6
Yellowcake Packaging Throughput
The YCP silo operates fewer hours than the yellowcake dryer, at a maximum of 1.9 hours of yellowcake
packaging per 24 hours of yellowcake drying. The ratio of 1.9 hours per 24 hours was applied to the total
yellowcake drying hours for the selected window to calculate the packaging hours.
Table 5.4 Yellowcake Dryers Hourly Emissions Rate Based on SAER for the Representative Window
Yr Qtr Unat (uCi/sec) U238 (uCi/sec) Th228 (uCi/sec) Th230 (uCi/sec) Th232 (uCi/sec) Ra226 (uCi/sec) Pb 210 (uCi/sec)
2012 Q4 1.19E-03 5.79E-04 8.90E-09 2.19E-07 1.83E-09 1.35E-08 3.88E-07
Q4 6.08E-04 2.95E-04 8.23E-09 1.92E-07 0.00E+00 1.01E-08 3.42E-07
2013
Q2 2.61E-03 1.26E-03 3.19E-09 7.10E-08 1.29E-09 9.52E-09 3.19E-07
Q2 2.56E-03 1.24E-03 1.48E-09 7.59E-08 1.10E-09 4.96E-08 3.54E-07
Q3 2.50E-04 1.21E-04
Q3 2.50E-04 1.21E-04
Q4 1.66E-04 8.04E-05 1.50E-09 1.04E-08 2.40E-09 4.76E-09 1.29E-07
Q4 1.65E-04 7.99E-05 1.07E-09 8.64E-08 3.82E-09 1.46E-08 1.02E-07
2014
Q1 1.65E-04 8.00E-05
Q1 1.67E-04 8.10E-05
Q2 1.04E-03 5.04E-04 1.55E-09 1.09E-08 4.14E-10 1.97E-08
Q2 1.25E-06 6.06E-07 2.01E-10 1.68E-08 1.60E-09 1.97E-08
Q3 6.34E-04 3.07E-04
Q3 5.37E-04 2.60E-04
2015 Q1 1.06E-03 5.14E-04 4.62E-10 6.36E-09 1.92E-10 2.58E-09 1.36E-06
Q1 2.32E-03 1.13E-03 5.90E-10 1.01E-08 7.98E-11 4.24E-09 2.31E-06
Median 5.72E-04 2.78E-04 1.49E-09 4.39E-08 1.19E-09 1.18E-08 3.48E-07
Table 5.5 Packaging Stack Hourly Emissions Rate Based on SAER for the Representative Window
Yr Qtr Unat (uCi/sec) U238 (uCi/sec) Th228 (uCi/sec) Th230 (uCi/sec) Th232 (uCi/sec) Ra226 (uCi/sec) Pb 210 (uCi/sec)
2012 Q4 4.81E-03 2.33E-03 6.49E-08 2.54E-06 1.50E-08 7.43E-08 8.24E-07
2013
Q2 6.29E-02 3.05E-02 3.74E-08 7.99E-06 4.28E-08 1.92E-07 9.58E-07
Q3 1.73E-02 8.39E-03
Q4 1.55E-02 7.53E-03 1.77E-07 2.86E-05 2.68E-07 8.01E-07 2.03E-06
2014
Q1 1.83E-03 8.88E-04
Q2 1.25E-03 6.06E-04 2.77E-09 4.11E-07 3.21E-09 3.11E-07
Q3 9.82E-04 4.76E-04
Q3 5.99E-04 2.91E-04 2015 Q1 1.07E-04 5.19E-05 5.16E-09 1.07E-07 3.42E-09 8.09E-08 6.66E-08
Median 1.83E-03 8.88E-04 3.74E-08 2.54E-06 1.50E-08 1.92E-07 8.91E-07
Notes for Tables 5.4 and 5.5
a) Thorium isotope emission rates in 2015 were as reported individually in SAERs.
b) Thorium-230 emission rates from 2012 through 2014 were estimated based on measurements provided by
EFRI.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-7
Since the Mill processing steps reject nearly all the radium to the tailings, very little radon is released during
the production of yellowcake. No significant radon releases occur during yellowcake drying and packaging,
since only about 0.1% of the original Ra-226 in the ore is found in yellowcake. Therefore, the amount of
Rn-222 emitted from the yellowcake dryer and yellowcake packaging stacks was assumed to be negligible.
5.1.3 Vanadium Stacks
The vanadium present in the CP ore is partially solubilized during leaching. The dissolved vanadium is present
in uranium raffinate. Depending on its vanadium content, the uranium raffinate will either be recycled to the
counter-current decantation (CCD) step or further processed for recovery of vanadium before recycling.
Based on the data from four product lots selected randomly from the representative period, the V2O5 product
from the vanadium recovery contains approximately 0.000795% U3O8. Similar to previous assessments, the
feed rates for vanadium, which is processed through a separate vanadium circuit are 700 pounds per hour
for the vanadium dryer and 1680 pounds per hour for vanadium packaging.
Vanadium stack effluents were calculated based on the measured U-238 content in vanadium V2O5 product.
Since trace radionuclides in the vanadium product originate from the same source as those of the yellowcake
product, the calculated U-238 releases in the vanadium stacks were multiplied by the same ratios for each of
the radionuclides, Th-230, Ra-226, and Pb-210 , as were present in the yellowcake stack effluents. Therefore,
U-238 was estimated to be emitted at a rate of 5.86E-06 Ci/yr from the VS and 2.44E-06 Ci/yr from VD.
5.1.4 Leach Demister Stack
The leach area has seven (7) agitated tanks (paddle mixers) that contain 275 tons of ore in each tank. In a
typical year the leach circuit has ore solution in the tanks 4 months per year. The storage/leach tanks are
agitated and vented; the radon release from the passive vent (LDS) was estimated assuming that each Bq
of Ra-226 releases Rn-222 at the rate of 2.1 x 10-6 Bq per second and that all of the Rn-222 produced
during a day is released to the atmosphere. Therefore, using equations 6 and 7, radon was estimated to
be emitted at a rate of 58.6 Ci/yr. 𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶−222 �𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑠𝑠�=275 𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑆𝑆𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡∗7 𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡∗907185 𝑔𝑔𝑈𝑈𝑜𝑜𝑈𝑈𝑠𝑠∗0.006 ∗0.85 𝑔𝑔𝑈𝑈𝑔𝑔𝑈𝑈3𝑂𝑂8 ∗�1.22 ∗104 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝑈𝑈226𝑔𝑔𝑈𝑈�∗ 2.1 ∗10−6 (𝐵𝐵𝑈𝑈222)𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 𝐵𝐵𝑈𝑈226∗𝑠𝑠=2.09 ∗105
𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹−𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐�𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚�=𝟐𝟐.𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩 𝑹𝑹𝑹𝑹𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝟐𝒔𝒔∗ 𝟒𝟒𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝑹𝑹𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒔𝒔𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚∗𝟑𝟑𝟎𝟎𝒅𝒅𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎𝑹𝑹𝒎𝒎𝒎𝒎∗𝟐𝟐𝟒𝟒𝒎𝒎𝒚𝒚𝒅𝒅𝒚𝒚𝒚𝒚∗𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟑𝟎𝟎𝟎𝟎𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒎𝒚𝒚∗𝟑𝟑.𝟕𝟕∗𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟎−𝟏𝟏𝟎𝟎𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑪𝑩𝑩𝑩𝑩=𝟓𝟓𝟓𝟓.𝟑𝟑

5.2 Area Sources
Mill area sources used in this assessment include the ore pads and the TMS. A description of the approach
used to calculate the emissions from area sources is provided in this section.
(Eq. 6)
(Eq. 7)
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-8
5.2.1 Calculations of Annual Dust Loss
The calculation of the annual dust loss from the ore pads and the TMS was required to calculate an emission
factor. This dusting rate for the TMS is calculated according to the emission factor (Ew) equation from NRC
Regulatory Guide 3.59 (NRC 1987). The equation for the dusting rate is calculated as follows:
∑××=
S
SS
7
W FR0.5
103.156E
where,

Ew = annual dust loss per unit area in g/m2yr;
FS = annual average frequency of occurrence of wind speed group S (dimensionless) obtained from the
joint relative frequency distribution for the Mill (provided by EFRI 2019);
RS = resuspension rate for the TMS cell at the average wind speed for wind group S, for particles ≤ 20 µm
in diameter in g/m2s;
3.156 x 107 = number of seconds per year; and,
0.5= fraction of the total dust lost constituted by particles ≤ 20 µm in diameter.
Table 5.6 Parameter Values for Calculation of Annual Dusting Rate for Exposed Tailings
Wind Speed (knots (kts.) Average Wind Speed
Resuspension Rate (RS) (g/m2s)a
Frequency of Occurrence, (FS)b RS x FS
0 to 3 1.5 0 0.184 0
4 to 6 5.5 0 0.446 0
7 to 10 10 3.92E-07 0.253 9.93E-08
11 to 16 15.5 9.68E-06 0.092 8.92E-07
17 to 21 21.5 5.71E-05 0.021 1.22E-06
21+ 28 2.08E-04 0.003 6.95E-07
∑S 2.90E-06
Notes:
a) Resuspension rate of a function of wind speed is computed by the MILDOS-AREA code.
b) Wind speed frequency obtained from joint frequency distribution data (2013-2017) provided by EFRI 2019
The annual dust loss from the ore pads was estimated to be 10% that of the TMS cells since the particulates
in the ore pads are coarse material (1 to 6 inch) because the ore has not yet been ground. Therefore, using
the method from NRC Regulatory Guide 3.59 (NRC 1987) and site meteorological data, the estimated annual
dust loss from the ore pad is 18 g/m2yr. Similarly, using equation 8 and the parameters in Table 5.6, the
estimated annual dust loss from the TMS cells is approximately 183 g/m2yr.

(Eq. 8)
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-9
5.2.2 Ore Pad
Radon Emission Rate
The ore pad storage operation has two different sources of emissions, namely unloading ore from trucks to
the ore pad and wind emissions. Since alternate feed – containerized (AF(C)) materials are in containers, the
AF(C) materials do not contribute to radioactive particulate releases or to the emissions of radon from truck
unloading and the ore storage pad.
Approximately 155,000 tons of ore were assumed to be temporarily stockpiled at the Mill’s ore pads at any
given time. Using a bulk ore density of 1.47 tons/yd3 (EFRI, Feb. 6/07), the quantity of ore would create a pile
25 feet (ft.) (7.6 m) tall covering approximately 4 acres (16000 m2) stockpile area.
Table 5.7 Ore Pad Radon Emissions
Colorado Plateau ore Arizona Strip ore
Alternate Feed (Bulk only)
Area (m2) 16000 16000 16000
Contaminant Concentration (pCi/g Ra-226) 565 1694 114
Specific Radon Flux Factor (pCi
Rn-222/m2s)/(pCi/g Ra-226) 1 1 1
𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶𝑔𝑔𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑅𝑅𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶=Specific Radon Flux Factor pCiRn222m2spCigRa226 ∗ Contaminant Concentration 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑔𝑔 𝐵𝐵𝑈𝑈226 ∗Area (m2)∗�3.156x107 𝑠𝑠𝑦𝑦𝑜𝑜 �∗�10−12 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶�

Using equation 9, the radon release from storage of CP and AS ore is approximately 285 Ci/yr and 851 Ci/yr.
respectively. Similarly, the radon release from storage of AF(B) is approximately 57.3 Ci/yr.
Radioactive Particulate Emission Rates
The U-238 Emission Rate is calculated as follows: 𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶 𝐸𝐸𝑅𝑅=𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡 𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝐹𝐹𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑔𝑔𝑚𝑚2𝑦𝑦𝑜𝑜∗𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶(𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑡𝑡)∗4047 𝑚𝑚2𝑈𝑈𝑎𝑎𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜∗𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐸𝐸𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑔𝑔∗�10−12𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝑝𝑝𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶�

Using equation 10, the U-238 Emission Rate from storage of CP ore and AS ore is approximately 1.65E-04
Ci/yr and 4.95E-04 Ci/yr. respectively. U-238 decay daughters (Th-230, Ra-226 and Pb-210) were assumed
to be in secular equilibrium; therefore, the decay daughters are also emitted at a rate of 1.65E-04 Ci/yr and
4.95E-04 Ci/yr respectively.
(Eq. 9)
(Eq. 10)
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-10
For AF(B), the Dawn Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Solids and SFC materials are received in supersacks
and, if not processed in a short time, are then covered on the pad. Therefore, similar to previous assessments,
it was assumed that this source term produces no particulate emissions on the ore pad, and only radon is
emanating from the bags in the same way radon would emanate from piles. For AF(C) materials received in
containers, there is no contribution to radioactive particulate releases or to the emissions of Rn-222 from truck
unloading or from the ore pad.
5.2.3 Tailings Cells
The characteristics of each TMS cell included in Phase 1 and 2 for the proposed development of new TMS
Cells 5A and 5B are provided in Tables 5.8 and 5.9, respectively. Table 5.10 provides a summary of the
estimated radioactive particulate emission rates.
Table 5.8 Status of TMS Cells in Phase 1
Tailings Cell Inactive/Soil Cover Active
2 x
3 x
4A and 4B A
5A and 5B Not Constructed
Key: x = covered or inactive; A = active
Table 5.9 Status of TMS Cells in Phase 2
Tailings Cell Inactive/Soil Cover Active
2 x
3 x
4A and 4B x
5A and 5B A
Key: x = inactive/covered; A = active
Table 5.10 Radioactive Particulate Emission Rates
Colorado Plateau Ore Arizona Strip Ore Alternate Feeds
Active Active Active
Cell 4A/4B Cell 5A/5B Cell 4A/4B Cell 5A/5B Cell 4A/4B Cell 5A/5B
Area (acres) 40 40 40 40 40 40
Contaminant Concentration (pCi/g U-238)a 22 22 33 33 72 72
Contaminant Concentration
of all other isotopes (pCi/g) 364 364 546 546
1200 (Th-230), 7.9 (Ra-226),
43 (Pb-210), 13.8 (Th-232)
1200 (Th-230), 7.9 (Ra-226),
43 (Pb-210), 13.8 (Th-232) Process Emission Factor, EW (g/m2yr)b 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6 36.6
Notes:
a) Assumes 94% recovery of uranium in ore fed to Mill; 6% discharge to tailings.
b) The process emission factor for the TMS cells was derived in Section 5.2.1. It was assumed that only 20% of the
total area is "resuspendable", therefore Ew was multiplied by 0.2.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-11
Active TMS Cells
Since it is not possible to predict the distribution of uncovered tailings between active cells (i.e. those receiving
tailings solids) at any given time, wind erosion from the active cells was modelled by using a maximal worst-
case approach. The following assumptions were used for the active cells:
• Each active tailings cell (i.e. those receiving tailings solids) was assumed to have a maximum
uncovered area of 20% (8 acres) of the total area (40 acres). This assumption is considered to be
conservative, because the average area of uncovered tailings in a cell is expected to be less than
8 acres.
• Wind-eroded dust would arise from the entire uncovered section of the tailings.
• The total annual radon release rate for each active tailings cell (i.e. those receiving tailings solids)
was estimated from radon release measurements of 56 pCi/m2s (a radon flux of 56 pCi/m2s for
exposed tailings beaches is based on an overall release rate of 280 pCi/m2s for an active 40-acre
cell and assuming 20% of the cell solids are exposed with the remaining 80% covered by solution.
This is consistent with the assumption in EPA’s Final Rule for Radon, August 1986 (pp 7-19) where
EPA assumes 20% of tailings surface is dry and 80% under water cover).
• Uranium 238 values are multiplied by 0.06 as the process is assumed to be 94% efficient and only
6% of the uranium should remain in the tailings.
With these assumptions and the particulate emission factor, U-238 would be emitted at a rate of 7.54E-04 Ci/yr
and for the decay daughters, Th-230 was estimated at 1.25E-02 Ci/yr, Ra-226 was estimated at
5.43E-03 Ci/yr and Pb-210 was estimated at 5.64E-03 Ci/yr. Similarly, Th-232 was estimated at
8.16E-05 Ci/yr.
These total annual emission rates assume operation at the proposed ore process rate of 100,000 tons per
year (tpy) and an ore specific activity of 565 pCi/g for CP, 50,000 tpy and ore specific activity of 1694 pCi/g
for AS, and 5275 tpy and ore specific activity of 29,100 pCi/g for total AF materials.
In this assessment, the total annual radon release rates for active tailing Cells 4A and 4B during Phase 1 and
Cells 5A and 5B during Phase 2, was estimated to be 286 Ci/yr. These estimates are extremely conservative
because it was assumed that the radon release rate of 56 pCi/m2s (i.e., maximum radon-222 emissions to
ambient air from an existing uranium mill tailings impoundment) occurred over the entire area of each cell.
Interim Soil Cover (Inactive TMS Cells)
The inactive cells with soil cover were assumed to have either interim or partial/full final cover over the entire
area of each cell. The following assumptions were used for the inactive cells with either interim or partial/full
soil covers:
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-12
• The total annual radon release rate for each inactive TMS cell was calculated by assuming a radon
release rate of 20 pCi/m2s (i.e., maximum radon-222 emissions to ambient air from an existing
uranium tailings cell that is allowed under the regulations) over the entire area of each cell; and
• No tailings dust will be released.
In this assessment, the total annual radon release rates for inactive TMS Cells 2 and 3 was estimated to be
169 and 180 Ci/yr respectively.
5.3 Meteorological Data
Meteorological conditions influence re-suspension and dispersion of radionuclides from point sources and
area sources. The Mill has an on-site weather monitoring station located on the northern property boundary
that records wind speed, wind direction and atmospheric stability class∗. The surrounding terrain slopes up
towards the north and down to the south and southwest. This data is used to formulate a joint frequency
distribution which is a required input for MILDOS-AREA. The 2013-2017 annual meteorological data from the
Mill site was used in MILDOS-AREA.
The 2013-2017 wind frequency with the resulting wind rose is shown in Figure 5.2. The predominant wind
directions during the 2013-2017 period were from the north to north-northeasterly and the average wind speed
in each direction is shown in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.2 Wind Direction (blowing from)

∗ Atmospheric stability classes reflect the turbulent structure of the air and affect the ability of the air to disperse contaminants.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%N NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Wind Rose White Mesa Mill 2013-2017
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-13
Figure 5.3 Average Wind Speed (m/s)

5.4 Population Data
The population data was obtained from the year 2010 U.S. census and was used to complete demographic
and population dose projections. Census data is only available in 10-year intervals for population centers of
less than 65,000 residents, and local demographics have experienced little change since the 2010 census.

0
1
2
3
4
5 N
NNE
NE
ENE
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSW
SW
WSW
W
WNW
NW
NNW
Wind Rose White Mesa Mill 2013-2017
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 5-14
5.5 Uranium Mill Source Emission Rates

The calculated Mill radioactive particulate and radon emission rates from point sources and area sources described in Sections 5.1 and 5.2, respectively
are provided in Table 5.11.
Table 5.11 Radioactive Particulate and Radon Emission Rates (Ci/yr)
Source Rn-222 U-238 Th-230 Ra-226 Pb-210 Rn-220 Th-232 Ra-228 Th-228
South Yellowcake Dryer 0.00E+00 4.97E-03 7.86E-07 2.11E-07 6.23E-06 - 2.14E-08 2.67E-08 2.67E-08
North Yellowcake Dryer - - - - - - - - -
Grizzly Baghouse 2.62E+01 2.20E-05 4.70E-07 2.20E-05 2.20E-05 - 1.13E-08 5.44E-09 5.44E-09 Yellowcake Baghouse - 1.13E-03 3.23E-06 2.44E-07 1.13E-06 - 1.90E-08 4.74E-08 4.74E-08
Vanadium Dryer (Scrubber) - 5.86E-06 8.05E-09 1.14E-09 4.28E-09 - - - -
Vanadium Packaging Stack - 2.44E-06 3.35E-09 4.76E-10 1.78E-09 - - - -
Leach Demister 7.90E+01 - - - - - - - - Truck Unloading 1.41E+00 3.94E-06 3.94E-06 3.94E-06 3.94E-06 - - - - Ore Storage Pad 1.19E+03 6.60E-04 6.60E-04 6.60E-04 6.60E-04 - - - -
Cell 2 1.69E+02 - - - - - - - -
Cell 3 1.80E+02 - - - - - - - -
Cell 4A a 2.86E+02 7.54E-04 1.25E-02 5.43E-03 5.64E-03 3.78E+02 8.16E-05 8.16E-05 8.16E-05 Cell 4B a 2.86E+02 7.52E-04 1.24E-02 5.42E-03 5.63E-03 3.77E+02 8.14E-05 8.14E-05 8.14E-05 Notes:
a) Table 5.11 is for active tailings cells. When Cells 5A and 5B are in operation, the radon and dust emissions will be as shown for Cells 4A and 4B in the above
table.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 6-1
6.0 RECEPTORS
The receptors and their locations as used in this assessment were provided by EFRI and pre-approved by
DWMRC. Table 6.1 below lists the receptor locations used in the Arcadis’ MILDOS-AREA model runs. They
include actual receptor locations and potential locations of hypothetical receptors.
Table 6.1 Receptor Locations
Name Type East (UTM) North (UTM)
Creek Bed West of Tailings Other 629849 4155265
SW Camper Other 629269 4151623
Industrial - East Industrial 633080 4155558
BHV-8 (Industrial - North) Industrial 632233 4157124
BHV-1 (Nearest Potential Resident) Resident 633184 4157175
BHV-2 (Nearest Historical Resident) Resident 633549 4160099
Nearest Resident Between BHV-1 and BHV-2 Resident 633307 4158583
Nearest Potential Ute Resident Resident 633134 4150352
Blanding Resident Resident 633817 4163283
White Mesa Resident Resident 634068 4150333
East of Cells 5A and 5B Industrial 633105 4153941

At the time of the 1979 Final Environmental Statement (FES) (NRC 1979) for the Mill, the nearest resident
lived approximately 4.8 miles (8 km) north-north east of the Mill building, near the location of air monitoring
station BHV-2 (also referred to as the nearest historical resident.) Currently, the nearest “potential” resident
is approximately 1.2 miles (1.9 km) north of the Mill, near the location of air monitoring station BHV-1. Nearby
population groups include the community of White Mesa, about 5.4 miles (8.5 km) southeast of the Mill and
the city of Blanding, which is approximately 6 miles (10 km) north of the Mill. For this assessment, a new non-
residential receptor, the Nearest Potential Ute Resident, (was located east of the TMS Cells 5A and 5B. The
receptor locations (plotted in Google Earth) with respect to the SYC stack are shown in Figure 6.1.
Further, the dose assessment considers an occupancy factor for each receptor. The occupancy factor
accounts for the time that an individual is potentially exposed to the source of radiation. For residential
receptors, the occupancy factor is considered to be 100%. For non-resident receptors identified as “industrial”,
occupancy factors were equivalent to an individual working at the location for eight hours a day for 50 weeks
of the year (this assumed a two-week vacation per year). Although children and Infants are not reasonable
receptor scenarios for an industrial location, they were included in this scenario for completeness. The
remaining non-residential locations are on federally-owned public lands and the assumption was made that
an individual would stay at the location for 14 days which is the maximum time allowed by federal agencies
to camp or stay on federally-owned public lands.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 6-2
Figure 6.1 Receptor Locations
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 7-1
7.0 RADIATION DOSE ESTIMATES
This section describes the MILDOS-AREA results of the Mill’s potential radiological impacts on the population
in the vicinity of the Mill. This analysis was primarily based on the estimated annual releases of radioactive
materials and assumptions discussed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0. All exposure pathways with potential to impact
individuals near the Mill were included in the MILDOS-AREA model.
MILDOS-AREA calculates the total annual effective dose commitment (including radon). The calculated total
annual effective dose commitments were compared to the 10 CFR 20 (R313-15) requirements that the dose
to individual members of the public shall not exceed 100 mrem/yr (radon included). In addition,
MILDOS-AREA calculates 40 CFR 190 doses (excludes radon). The 40 CFR 190 (R313-15-301(4)) Criterion
is 25 mrem/yr to the whole body (excluding the dose due to radon) and 25 mrem/yr to any other organ to any
member of the public (EPA 2002). The 40 CFR 190 doses were also used to demonstrate compliance with
10 CFR 20.1101(d) (R313-15-101(4)). Under 10 CFR 20.1101(d) (R313-15-101(4) the licensee must
demonstrate as an ALARA goal that the total effective dose equivalent to the individual member of the public
likely to receive the highest total effective dose equivalent will not exceed 10 mrem/yr (absent of the radon
dose).
Total annual dose commitments and 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments were estimated for locations in
which individual members of the public might reside (Nearest Potential Resident (BHV-1), Nearest Historical
Resident (BHV-2), Nearest Resident between BHV-1 and BHV-2, White Mesa Ute Community and Blanding,
for the development of the new TMS cells. The total annual dose commitments and 40 CFR 190 annual dose
commitments for Phases 1 and 2 are provided in Sections 7.1 and 7.2.
7.1 MILDOS-AREA Results
7.1.1 R313-15-301(1)(a) Regulatory Compliance
The MILDOS-AREA calculated total annual dose commitments (including radon) for Phases 1 and 2 are
tabulated in Appendix B, and summarized in this section. These doses are regulated by R313-15-301(1)(a)
which requires that the dose to an individual member of the public shall not exceed 100 mrem/yr (radon
included).
Phase 1
Table B.1 presents a summary of the individual dose commitments for the residential receptors for the age
groups of infant, child, teenager and adult for Phase 1; that is, the current TMS without construction of Cells 5A
and 5B. Table B.2 provides individual dose commitments for the results from non-residential receptors.
The total annual effective dose commitments are at most 8.2% (effective dose for an infant at Nearest
Potential Ute Resident) of the R313-15-301(1)(a) limit of 100 mrem/yr (radon included) to an individual
member of the public. Therefore, the predicted annual effective dose commitments comply with R313-15-
301(1)(a).
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 7-2
Phase 2
Tables B.3 and B.4 present a summary of the individual dose commitments for residential and non-residential
receptors respectively for the age groups of infant, child, teenager and adult for Phase 2, operation of Cells 5A
and 5B.
From Table B.3, the total annual effective dose commitments are at most 8.9% (effective dose for an infant at
Nearest Potential Ute Resident) of the R313-15-301(1)(a) limit of 100 mrem/yr (radon included) to an individual
member of the public. Therefore, the predicted annual effective dose commitments comply with R313-15-
301(1)(a). This dose commitment (with TMS Cell 5A and B) represents a minimal increase over the dose
commitment from the current situation (without Cell 5A and B).
7.1.2 40 CFR 190 Regulatory Compliance
MILDOS-AREA calculated 40 CFR 190 doses (excludes radon). These doses are regulated by the 40 CFR
190 (R313-15-301(4) criterion of 25 mrem/yr to the whole body (excluding the dose due to radon) (EPA 2002)
or to any organ of the body. The 40 CFR 190 doses are also used to demonstrate compliance with R313-15-
101(4) (10 CFR 20.1101(d)). The licensee must demonstrate as an ALARA goal, that total effective dose
equivalent to the individual member of the public likely to receive the highest total effective dose equivalent
will not exceed 10 mrem/yr (absent of the radon dose).
Phase 1
Tables B.5 and B.6 present a summary of the 40 CFR 190 individual dose commitments for residential and
non-residential receptors respectively for the age groups of infant, child, teenager and adult for Phase 1.
From Tables B.5 and B.6, the 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments are at most 3.51 mrem/yr (dose to the
bone for the teenager at BHV-1) which are well below the 40 CFR 190 dose criterion of 25 mrem/yr (14% of
the 25 mrem/yr limit). In addition, the 40 CFR 190 annual effective dose commitments demonstrate
compliance with the R313-15-101(4) (10 CFR 20.1101(d)) ALARA goal of 10 mrem/yr to the individual
member of the public likely to receive the highest total effective dose equivalent. The maximum total effective
dose equivalent was 0.58 mrem/yr (infant at BHV-1), or 5.8% of the 10 mrem/yr goal.
Phase 2
Tables B.7 and B.8 present a summary of the 40 CFR 190 individual dose commitments for residential and
non-residential receptors respectively for the age groups of infant, child, teenager and adult for Phase 2, that
is, with Cells 5A and 5B in operation.
From Tables B.7 and B.8, the 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments are at most 2.94 mrem/yr (dose to the
bone for the teenager at BHV-1) which are well below the 40 CFR 190 dose criterion of 25 mrem/yr (11.8%
of the 25 mrem/yr limit) In addition, the 40 CFR 190 annual effective dose commitments demonstrate
compliance with the R313-15-101(4) (10 CFR 20.1101(d)) ALARA goal of 10 mrem/yr to the individual
member of the public likely to receive the highest total effective dose equivalent. The maximum total effective
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 7-3
dose equivalent was 0.54 mrem/yr (infant at BHV-1), or 5.4% of the 10 mrem/yr goal. Moreover, the highest
dose commitment (to the bone for the teenager) and the annual effective dose commitment (infant at BHV-1)
were both lower in the Phase 2 assessment (Cells 5A and 5B in operation) (due to the active tailings cells
being further away from BHV-1).
7.1.3 Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1
and Phase 2
Tables B.9 and B.10 present a comparison of 40 CFR 190 (R313-15-301(4)) Annual Dose Commitments
between Phase 1 and Phase 2 for the age groups of infant, child, teenager and adult.
From Tables B.9 and B.10, the 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments will decrease slightly for all receptors
north of the new TMS cells 5A and 5B and will slightly increase for all receptors south of the proposed
development. The largest increase is observed at SW Camper located south-west of the Mill, which is in line
with the predominant wind direction shown in Figure 5.2. However, the largest 40 CFR 190 dose for SW
Camper is still only 0.1 mrem/yr (dose to the bone for an infant), equivalent to 0.42% of the 25 mrem/yr
criterion.
7.1.4 Comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and Phase 2
Tables B.11 and B.12 present a comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between
Phase 1 and Phase 2 for residential and non-residential receptors respectively, for the age groups of infant,
child, teenager and adult.
Similarly, from Tables B.11 and B.12, the R313-15-301(1)(a) annual dose commitments will slightly decrease
for all receptors north of the new TMS cells 5A and 5B and slightly increase for all receptors south of the
proposed development. The largest increase is observed at SW Camper located south-west of the Mill, which
is in line with the predominant wind direction shown in Figure 5.2. However, the largest R313-15-301(1)(a)
dose for SW Camper is still only 0.36 mrem/yr (effective dose for an infant), equivalent to 0.36% of the 100
mrem/yr criterion.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 8-1
8.0 KEY FINDINGS
As described in Section 1.0, the objective of this dose assessment is to compare the doses from the proposed
development of new TMS Cells 5A and 5B to the doses from the current TMS (without Cells 5A and 5B), in
support of a license amendment application for the construction and operation of the new TMS cells. The
basis for estimating source terms and doses is described in earlier sections of this report.
The total annual effective dose commitments (including radon) estimated using MILDOS-AREA were
compared to the Utah Administrative Code R313-15-301(1)(a) requirement that the dose to individual
members of the public shall not exceed 100 mrem/yr (radon included). For the typical conservative scenario
during Phase 1, the maximum total annual effective dose commitment was calculated to be a maximum of
8.2 mrem/yr for an infant at the nearest potential residence (Tables B.1 and B.2) (i.e., effective dose) and is
about 8.2% of the R313-15-301(1)(a) limit of 100 mrem/yr (radon included). For the typical conservative
scenario during Phase 2, the maximum total annual effective dose commitment was calculated to be a
maximum of 8.9 mrem/yr for an infant at the nearest potential residence (Tables B.3 and B.4) (i.e., effective
dose) and is about 8.9% of the R313-15-301(1)(a) limit of 100 mrem/yr (radon included) to an individual
member of the public.
For context, it is useful to note that according to NCRP 160 (2009), the average effective dose to an individual
in the USA is about 3.1 mSv (310 mrem), of which, roughly 2/3 is attributed to naturally occurring radon and
its decay products.
In addition, MILDOS-AREA calculated 40 CFR 190 (R313-15-301(4)) annual dose commitments (excluding
radon) were compared to the 40 CFR 190 criterion, which is 25 mrem/yr to the whole body (excluding the
dose due to radon) and 25 mrem/yr to any other organ to any member of the public (EPA 2002). The 40 CFR
190 doses were also used to demonstrate compliance with the ALARA goal set out in R313-15-101(4) (10
CFR 20.1101(d)) (i.e., the ALARA goal is to demonstrate that total effective dose equivalent to the individual
member of the public likely to receive the highest total effective dose equivalent will not exceed 10 mrem/yr
(absent of the radon dose)).
For the typical conservative scenario during Phase 1, the 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments were
estimated to be a maximum of 3.51 mrem/yr for a teenager at the nearest potential residence, BHV-1
(Tables B.5 and B.6) (i.e., dose to the bone) and is about 14% of the 40 CFR 190 dose criterion of 25 mrem/yr.
For the typical conservative scenario during Phase 2, the 40 CFR 190 annual dose commitments were
estimated to be a maximum of 2.94 mrem/yr for a teenager at the nearest potential residence, BHV-1
(Tables B.7 and B.8) (i.e., dose to the bone) and is about 11.8% of the 40 CFR 190 dose criterion of
25 mrem/yr.
Further, the 40 CFR 190 annual effective dose commitments demonstrate compliance with the R313-15-
101(4) (10 CFR 20.1101(d)) ALARA goal of 10 mrem/yr to the individual member of the public likely to receive
the highest total effective dose equivalent (the maximum total effective dose equivalent (radon excluded) for
both phases, at 0.54 mrem/yr and 0.58 mrem/yr respectively, for an infant at BHV-1.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 8-2
In summary:
• For the proposed development of TMS Cells 5A and 5B, the 40 CFR 190 (R313-15-301(4)) annual
dose commitment will decrease slightly for receptors north of the Mill and will increase slightly for
receptors south of the Mill.
• For all receptors in both cases (with and without TMS Cells 5A and 5B), the annual dose commitment
is well below the regulatory thresholds.
• The annual dose commitment and the total effective dose equivalent to the maximally exposed
individual, will decrease in the case of the proposed development of TMS Cells 5A and 5B.
• These MILDOS-AREA-based dose assessments are consistent with the very low level of
radionuclides measured at the BHVs and reported in the SAERs.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 9-1
9.0 REFERENCES
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). 1998a. MILDOS-AREA, Version 2.20β, Developed at the Environmental
Assessment Division.
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL). 1998b. MILDOS-AREA User’s Guide (Draft), Environmental
Assessment Division.
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 10 Part 20 Standards for Protection Against Radiation. May.
Dames & Moore1978. Environmental Report: White Mesa Uranium Project San Juan County, Utah for Energy
Fuels Nuclear, Inc. January.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA). 2007a. Press Release: Denison Announces Operations Update.
January 30.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (DUSA). 2007b. 2006 ALARA Report. May 10.
EnecoTech Environmental Consultants. 1991a. MILDOS Modeling Results (Letter), Prepared for Umetco
Minerals. October 31.
EnecoTech Environmental Consultants. 1991b. MILDOS Modeling Correction (Letter), Prepared for Umetco
Minerals. November 27.
Google 2005. Google Earth Pro 3.0.0762, November.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1979. Limits for Intakes of Radionuclides by
Workers (adopted from July 1978). ICRP Publication 30.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1972. The Metabolism of Compounds of
Plutonium and Other Actinides. ICRP Publication 19, Pergamon Press.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1971. Recommendations of the International
Commission on Radiological Protection. ICRP Publication 10A. Pergamon Press, New York.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1966. Deposition and retention models for
internal dosimetry of the human respiratory tract. Health Physics 12; 173-207.
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP). 1959. Report of ICRP Committee II on
Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation, Health Physics 3:1-380, 1960.
Landau, S. 2007. Email: RE: 34489- Preliminary Mildos Results and Emissions Calculations. Received Feb.
13/07.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 9-2
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 2009. Report No. 160: Ionizing
Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States.
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). 1987. Report No. 94. Exposure of
Population in the United States and Canada from Natural Background Radiation.
Strenge, D.L. and Bander, T.J. 1981. MILDOS- A Computer Program for Calculating Environmental Radiation
Doses from Uranium Recovery Operations, NUREG/CR-2011. Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Turk, D. 2007a. Email to A. Ho: RE: Receptor GPS. Received February 14-15.
Turk, D. 2007b. Email to D. Chambers: FW: Additional Weather Information. Received Feb 7.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2002. Code of Federal (CFR) Regulations Title 40
Part 190 Environmental Radiation Protection for Nuclear Power Operations. February.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1989. Code of Federal (CFR) Regulations Title 40
Part 61 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs), Subpart W.
December.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2011. Lurie, Abramson and Vail NUREG 1475
Applying Statistics Revision 1, March.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1987. Methods for Estimating Radioactive and Toxic
Airborne Source Terms for Uranium Milling Operations, March.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1980. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on Uranium Milling Project M-25, NUREG-0706 Vol. 3. September.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 1979. Final Environmental Statement Related to the
Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc, NUREG-0556. Docket No. 40-8681. May.
Yu, C. 1992. Calculation of Radiation Dose from Uranium Recovery Operations for Large Area-Sources,
Argonne National Laboratory.

APPENDIX A
History of MILDOS-AREA

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 A-1
APPENDIX A – HISTORY OF MILDOS-AREA
The MILDOS-AREA computer code was developed from the version IV for Argonne National Laboratory’s
(ANL’s) Uranium Dispersion and Dosimetry (UDAD) computer program 1981. The MILDOS-AREA program
was based on the models and assumptions from NRC Draft Regulatory Guide RH802-4 (Calculational Models
for Estimating Radiation Doses to Man from Airborne Radioactive Material Resulting from Uranium Milling
Operation) and portions of the UDAD document (Strenge and Bender 1981).
In 1989, ANL developed the MILDOS-AREA code by modifying the MILDOS-AREA code developed in 1981.
The MILDOS-AREA code was designed for use on IBM or IBM compatible computers; the changes made
were intended to enhance capabilities for calculating dose from large area-sources and updated dosimetry
calculations. The major revision from the original MILDOS-AREA code is the treatment of atmospheric
dispersion from area sources; MILDOS-AREA substituted a finite-element approach for the virtual-point
source method (the algorithm used in the original MILDOS-AREA code) when specified by the user. The new
approach subsequently led to a reduction in the number of sources from 20 to 10 in MILDOS-AREA due to
the fact that a large area can be considered as a single source rather than two or more point sources.
The internal dosimetry calculations were also updated in MILDOS-AREA. In the original version of MILDOS,
the dose to an exposed individual is calculated for comparison with requirements of both 40 CFR 190 and
10 CFR 20 (R313-15). The calculations of ingestion Dose Conversion Factors (DCF)s were based on ICRP
Publication 2 and 10A’s ingestion models (ICRP 1966). The inhalation DCFs are calculated by the ANL
computer program UDAD in accordance with Task Group on Lung Dynamics Lung Model (TGLM) of the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP 1966, ICRP 1972). ICRP Publication 19 (ICRP
1972) gives dose commitments to adult members of the public at age 20 that are assumed to live another 50
years. DCFs are provided as a function of particle size and organ for the radionuclides U-238, U-234, Th-30,
Ra-226, Pb-210, Po-210 and Bi-210. The inhalation dose factors incorporated into MILDOS-AREA are
calculated using the dosimetric model from ICRP Publication 30 (ICRP 1979) (Yu 1992); the inhalation dose
factors are provided for the age groups of infant, child, teenager and adult. However, these factors are fixed
internally in the code, and are not part of the input options. The annual average air concentrations were
computed to the maximum permissible concentrations (MPCs) in 10 CFR 20. The MPCs in 10 CFR 20
(incorporated by reference in R313-15) were revised in 1994 to incorporate the updated dosimetry to the ICRP
1978 recommendations.
In 1997, the MILDOS-AREA code was updated to meet the requirements of the revised 10 CFR 20. The dose
limit to the general public also changed; which led to a revised calculation of the allowable concentrations
(ALCs) for unrestricted areas, with MPC replaced with the term “effluent concentrations”.
In 1998, ANL again updated the MILDOS-AREA code in an attempt to improve the “user friendliness” of the
software. In the past, the user must develop an input file in an American Standard Code for Information
Interchange (ASCII) file containing values that are required by the code. The code executes this file to
produce the output. This version of MILDOS-AREA version 3 has a graphical user interface (GUI) which
provides an interface for the user to input each parameter needed for the calculations in the Windows
operating system. The GUI allows the results of the MILDOS-AREA calculations to be viewed.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 A-2
For the new version MILDOS-AREA version 4.02 the following improvements and additions were made to the
code: (a) support for ores containing thorium-232 (Th-232) and its daughter radionuclides in addition to the
currently supported uranium-238 (U-238) and its daughter radionuclides, (b) a revised area source model, (c)
the capability to perform sensitivity analysis on specific input parameters, (d) the capability to use current
meteorological data provided by the National Climatic Data Center, and (e) an interactive results module.
MILDOS-AREA calculates the impacts based on annual average air concentrations of nuclides considered.
The human pathways considered in MILDOS-AREA for individual and population impacts are: inhalation,
external exposure from ground concentrations, external exposure from cloud immersion, ingestion of
vegetables, ingestion of meat and ingestion of milk.

APPENDIX B
Tables of Dose Commitment Results

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-1
APPENDIX B – TABLES OF DOSE COMMITMENT RESULTS
The annual dose commitments (including radon) calculated by MILDOS-AREA are provided in Tables B.1
through B.10 and a comparison of annual dose commitments between Phase 1 and 2 are provided in Tables
B.9 through B.12.
For Tables B.1 to B.8, for each category of receptor, i.e. residential or non-residential, the highest dose
commitment for the maximally exposed individual is highlighted in yellow.
LIST OF TABLES
Table B.1 Phase 1 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards - Residential Receptors* ...................................................................B-2
Table B.2 Phase 1 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards - Non-Residential Receptors ............................................................B-4
Table B.3 Phase 2 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards – Residential Receptors 1) ................................................................B-6
Table B.4 Phase 2 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards – Non-Residential Receptors ...........................................................B-8
Table B.5 Phase 1 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with
Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Residential Receptors 1) ............................B-10
Table B.6 Phase 1 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with
Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Non Residential Receptors ........................B-12
Table B.7 Phase 2 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with
Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Residential Receptors ...............................B-14
Table B.8 Phase 2 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with
Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Non-Residential Receptors .......................B-16
Table B.9 Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1
and Phase 2 – Residential Receptors 1) ............................................................................B-18
Table B.10 Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1
and Phase 2 – Non-Residential Receptors .......................................................................B-20
Table B.11 Comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between
Phase 1 and Phase 2 – Residential Receptors 1) .............................................................B-22
Table B.12 Comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between
Phase 1 and Phase 2 – Non-Residential Receptors .........................................................B-24

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-2
Table B.1 Phase 1 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards - Residential Receptors*
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Nearest Resident between BHV1&BHV2
Infant Effective 3.00E+00 100 3.0%
Bone 1.56E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.84E+00 - -
Child Effective 2.88E+00 100 2.9%
Bone 1.36E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.26E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 2.84E+00 100 2.8%
Bone 1.76E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.01E+00 - -
Adult Effective 2.82E+00 100 2.8%
Bone 1.38E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 2.96E+00 - -
BHV-1
Infant Effective 5.31E+00 100 5.3%
Bone 3.28E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 7.40E+00 - -
Child Effective 5.06E+00 100 5.1%
Bone 2.85E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 6.02E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 4.96E+00 100 5.0%
Bone 3.68E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.40E+00 - -
Adult Effective 4.92E+00 100 4.9%
Bone 2.88E+00 - - Avg. Lung 5.28E+00 - -
BHV-2
Infant Effective 1.94E+00 100 1.9%
Bone 8.86E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 2.36E+00 - -
Child Effective 1.87E+00 100 1.9%
Bone 7.77E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 2.05E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 1.84E+00 100 1.8%
Bone 1.02E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 1.92E+00 - -
Adult Effective 1.83E+00 100 1.8%
Bone 7.85E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.90E+00 - -
* 1) Residential receptors assumed 100% occupancy.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-3
Table B.1 (Cont’d) Phase 1 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation Protection Standards - Residential Receptors*
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Applicable Limit (mrem/yr)
Fraction of Limit
Nearest Potential Ute Resident
Infant Effective 8.20E+00 100 8.2%
Bone 2.51E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 9.77E+00 - -
Child Effective 8.00E+00 100 8.0%
Bone 2.16E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 8.73E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 7.92E+00 100 7.9%
Bone 2.64E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 8.26E+00 - -
Adult Effective 7.90E+00 100 7.9%
Bone 2.19E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 8.17E+00 - -
Blanding
Infant Effective 1.19E+00 100 1.2%
Bone 4.01E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.34E+00 - -
Child Effective 1.15E+00 100 1.2%
Bone 3.60E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.21E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 1.13E+00 100 1.1%
Bone 4.95E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.16E+00 - -
Adult Effective 1.12E+00 100 1.1%
Bone 1.82E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 1.14E+00 - -
White Mesa
Infant Effective 5.34E+00 100 5.3%
Bone 2.10E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 6.14E+00 - -
Child Effective 5.21E+00 100 5.2%
Bone 1.79E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.56E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 5.16E+00 100 5.2%
Bone 2.16E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.31E+00 - -
Adult Effective 5.14E+00 100 5.1%
Bone 1.82E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.26E+00 - -

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-4
Table B.2 Phase 1 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards - Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Industrial – East 2)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Child Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 2.65E+00 100 2.6%
Bone 2.31E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 2.88E+00 - -
Adult Effective 2.63E+00 100 2.6%
Bone 1.87E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 2.83E+00 - -
Industrial – North 2)
Infant

Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Child

Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Teenage

Effective 1.51E+00 100 1.5%
Bone 9.70E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.65E+00 - -
Adult

Effective 1.50E+00 100 1.5%
Bone 7.74E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.62E+00 - -
Receptor east of new Cell
5A/5B 2)
Infant

Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Child Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 3.42E+00 100 3.4%
Bone 2.99E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.70E+00 - -
Adult Effective 3.40E+00 100 3.4%
Bone 2.56E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.61E+00 - -

2) Assumes exposure for 8 hrs/d for 50 weeks.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-5
Table B.2 (Cont’d) Phase 1 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation Protection Standards - Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit

West of Tails 3)

Infant Effective 2.35E-01 100 0.2%
Bone 7.56E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 2.85E-01 - -
Child Effective 2.30E-01 100 0.2%
Bone 6.41E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 2.53E-01 - -
Teenage Effective 2.27E-01 100 0.2%
Bone 7.59E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 2.39E-01 - -
Adult Effective 2.27E-01 100 0.2%
Bone 6.48E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 2.36E-01 - -
SW Camper 3)
Infant Effective 3.13E-01 100 0.3%
Bone 9.51E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 3.54E-01 - -
Child Effective 3.08E-01 100 0.3%
Bone 8.25E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 3.27E-01 - -
Teenage Effective 3.06E-01 100 0.3%
Bone 1.00E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 3.14E-01 - -
Adult Effective 3.06E-01 100 0.3%
Bone 8.36E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 3.12E-01 - -
3) Assumes 14 days exposure while on federally-owned public lands.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-6
Table B.3 Phase 2 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards – Residential Receptors 1)
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Nearest Resident between BHV1&BHV2
Infant Effective 3.13E+00 100 3.1%
Bone 1.38E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.98E+00 - -
Child Effective 3.02E+00 100 3.0%
Bone 1.20E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.41E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 2.98E+00 100 3.0%
Bone 1.57E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.15E+00 - -
Adult Effective 2.96E+00 100 3.0%
Bone 1.22E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.11E+00 - -
BHV-1
Infant Effective 5.47E+00 100 5.5%
Bone 2.75E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 7.58E+00 - -
Child Effective 5.23E+00 100 5.2%
Bone 2.40E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 6.22E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 5.14E+00 100 5.1%
Bone 3.12E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.60E+00 - -
Adult Effective 5.10E+00 100 5.1%
Bone 2.42E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.48E+00 - -
BHV-2
Infant Effective 2.04E+00 100 2.0%
Bone 8.06E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 2.46E+00 - -
Child Effective 1.98E+00 100 2.0%
Bone 7.11E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 2.16E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 1.95E+00 100 2.0%
Bone 9.37E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 2.03E+00 - -
Adult Effective 1.94E+00 100 1.9%
Bone 7.18E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 2.01E+00 - -
1) Residential receptors assume 100% occupancy .

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-7
Table B.3 (Cont’d) Phase 2 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Applicable Limit (mrem/yr)
Fraction of Limit
Nearest Potential Ute Resident
Infant Effective 8.88E+00 100 8.9%
Bone 2.78E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 1.04E+01 - -
Child Effective 8.69E+00 100 8.7%
Bone 2.39E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 9.40E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 8.61E+00 100 8.6%
Bone 2.91E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 8.94E+00 - -
Adult Effective 8.58E+00 100 8.6%
Bone 2.42E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 8.85E+00 - -
Blanding
Infant Effective 1.26E+00 100 1.3%
Bone 3.78E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.41E+00 - -
Child Effective 1.21E+00 100 1.2%
Bone 3.43E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.28E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 1.20E+00 100 1.2%
Bone 4.77E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.22E+00 - -
Adult Effective 1.19E+00 100 1.2%
Bone 1.97E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 1.21E+00 - -
White Mesa
Infant Effective 5.94E+00 100 5.9%
Bone 2.26E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 6.73E+00 - -
Child Effective 5.81E+00 100 5.8%
Bone 1.94E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 6.15E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 5.76E+00 100 5.8%
Bone 2.33E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.90E+00 - -
Adult Effective 5.74E+00 100 5.7%
Bone 1.97E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 5.85E+00 - -

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-8
Table B.4 Phase 2 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation
Protection Standards – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Industrial East 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Child Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 2.69E+00 100 2.7%
Bone 1.82E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 2.95E+00 - -
Adult Effective 2.67E+00 100 2.7%
Bone 1.45E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 2.88E+00 - -
Industrial – North 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Child Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 1.57E+00 100 1.6%
Bone 8.52E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.71E+00 - -
Adult Effective 1.55E+00 100 1.6%
Bone 6.60E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 1.67E+00 - -
Receptor east of new Cell
5A/5B 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Child Effective 0.00E+00 100 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 - -
Teenage Effective 3.45E+00 100 3.4%
Bone 1.80E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.74E+00 - -
Adult Effective 3.45E+00 100 3.4%
Bone 1.52E+00 - -
Avg. Lung 3.68E+00 - -
1) Assumes exposure for occupancy of 8 hr/day 50 weeks a year.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-9
Table B.4 (Cont’d) Phase 2 – Comparison of Annual Dose Commitments to Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
West of Tails 2)
Infant Effective 2.56E-01 100 0.26%
Bone 7.71E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 3.06E-01 - -
Child Effective 2.51E-01 100 0.25%
Bone 6.56E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 2.74E-01 - -
Teenage Effective 2.49E-01 100 0.25%
Bone 7.75E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 2.60E-01 - -
Adult Effective 2.48E-01 100 0.25%
Bone 6.64E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 2.57E-01 - -
SW Camper 2)
Infant Effective 3.58E-01 100 0.36%
Bone 1.12E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 3.99E-01 - -
Child Effective 3.53E-01 100 0.35%
Bone 9.70E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 3.71E-01 - -
Teenage Effective 3.51E-01 100 0.35%
Bone 1.17E-01 - -
Avg. Lung 3.58E-01 - -
Adult Effective 3.50E-01 100 0.35%
Bone 9.86E-02 - -
Avg. Lung 3.56E-01 - -
2) Assumes occupancy of 14 days while on federally-owned public lands.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-10
Table B.5 Phase 1 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable
Radiation Protection Standards – Residential Receptors 1)
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Nearest
Resident between
BHV1&BHV2
Infant Effective 2.66E-01 25 1.1%
Bone 1.49E+00 25 6.0%
Avg. Lung 1.11E+00 25 4.4%
Child Effective 1.49E-01 25 0.6%
Bone 1.28E+00 25 5.1%
Avg. Lung 5.33E-01 25 2.1%
Teenage Effective 1.06E-01 25 0.4%
Bone 1.65E+00 25 6.6%
Avg. Lung 2.77E-01 25 1.1%
Adult Effective 8.73E-02 25 0.3%
Bone 1.30E+00 25 5.2%
Avg. Lung 2.28E-01 25 0.9%
BHV-1
Infant Effective 5.82E-01 25 2.3%
Bone 3.14E+00 25 12.6%
Avg. Lung 2.68E+00 25 10.7%
Child Effective 3.33E-01 25 1.3%
Bone 2.70E+00 25 10.8%
Avg. Lung 1.30E+00 25 5.2%
Teenage Effective 2.35E-01 25 0.9%
Bone 3.51E+00 25 14.0%
Avg. Lung 6.76E-01 25 2.7%
Adult Effective 1.92E-01 25 0.8%
Bone 2.73E+00 25 10.9%
Avg. Lung 5.58E-01 25 2.2%
BHV-2
Infant Effective 1.60E-01 25 0.6%
Bone 8.44E-01 25 3.4%
Avg. Lung 5.79E-01 25 2.3%
Child Effective 8.38E-02 25 0.3%
Bone 7.20E-01 25 2.9%
Avg. Lung 2.72E-01 25 1.1%
Teenage Effective 5.94E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 9.24E-01 25 3.7%
Avg. Lung 1.41E-01 25 0.6%
Adult Effective 4.83E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 7.27E-01 25 2.9%
Avg. Lung 1.15E-01 25 0.5%
1) Residential receptors assume 100% occupancy.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-11
Table B.5 (Cont’d) Phase 1 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Nearest Potential Ute Resident
Infant Effective 4.37E-01 25 1.7%
Bone 2.33E+00 25 9.3%
Avg. Lung 2.01E+00 25 8.0%
Child Effective 2.29E-01 25 0.9%
Bone 1.92E+00 25 7.7%
Avg. Lung 9.67E-01 25 3.9%
Teenage Effective 1.53E-01 25 0.6%
Bone 2.26E+00 25 9.0%
Avg. Lung 5.03E-01 25 2.0%
Adult Effective 1.35E-01 25 0.5%
Bone 1.94E+00 25 7.8%
Avg. Lung 4.16E-01 25 1.7%
Blanding
Infant Effective 8.97E-02 25 0.4%
Bone 3.76E-01 25 1.5%
Avg. Lung 2.43E-01 25 1.0%
Child Effective 3.93E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 3.14E-01 25 1.3%
Avg. Lung 1.07E-01 25 0.4%
Teenage Effective 2.71E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 4.04E-01 25 1.6%
Avg. Lung 5.44E-02 25 0.2%
Adult Effective 2.14E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 3.17E-01 25 1.3%
Avg. Lung 4.37E-02 25 0.2%
White Mesa
Infant Effective 2.98E-01 25 1.2%
Bone 1.98E+00 25 7.9%
Avg. Lung 1.09E+00 25 4.4%
Child Effective 1.58E-01 25 0.6%
Bone 1.63E+00 25 6.5%
Avg. Lung 5.17E-01 25 2.1%
Teenage Effective 1.11E-01 25 0.4%
Bone 1.89E+00 25 7.6%
Avg. Lung 2.68E-01 25 1.1%
Adult Effective 9.93E-02 25 0.4%
Bone 1.65E+00 25 6.6%
Avg. Lung 2.21E-01 25 0.9%

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-12
Table B.6 Phase 1 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable
Radiation Protection Standards – Non Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Industrial - East 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Child Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Teenage Effective 1.37E-01 25 0.5%
Bone 2.19E+00 25 8.8%
Avg. Lung 3.70E-01 25 1.5%
Adult Effective 1.16E-01 25 0.5%
Bone 1.75E+00 25 7.0%
Avg. Lung 3.06E-01 25 1.2%
Industrial - North 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Child Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Teenage Effective 6.39E-02 25 0.3%
Bone 9.20E-01 25 3.7%
Avg. Lung 2.05E-01 25 0.8%
Adult Effective 5.34E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 7.31E-01 25 2.9%
Avg. Lung 1.70E-01 25 0.7%
Receptor east of new
Cell 5A/5B 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 25 0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0%
Child Effective 0.00E+00 25 0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0%
Teenage Effective 1.70E-01 25 1%
Bone 2.88E+00 25 12%
Avg. Lung 4.32E-01 25 2%
Adult Effective 1.50E-01 25 1%
Bone 2.47E+00 25 10%
Avg. Lung 3.56E-01 25 1%
1) Assumes occupancy of 8 hr/day for 50 weeks a year.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-13
Table B.6 (Cont’d) Phase 1 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Applicable Limit (mrem/yr)
Fraction of Limit
West of Tails – NR 2)
Infant Effective 1.25E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 7.10E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 6.25E-02 25 0.3%
Child Effective 6.87E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 5.87E-02 25 0.2%
Avg. Lung 3.03E-02 25 0.1%
Teenage Effective 4.64E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 6.87E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 1.58E-02 25 0.1%
Adult Effective 4.14E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 5.91E-02 25 0.2%
Avg. Lung 1.31E-02 25 0.1%
SW Camper –
NR 2)
Infant Effective 1.25E-02 25 0.0%
Bone 8.86E-02 25 0.4%
Avg. Lung 5.33E-02 25 0.2%
Child Effective 7.10E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 7.33E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 2.58E-02 25 0.1%
Teenage Effective 4.99E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 8.48E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 1.34E-02 25 0.1%
Adult Effective 4.53E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 7.44E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 1.11E-02 25 0.0%
2) Assumes 14 days/yr of exposure while on federally-owned public lands.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-14
Table B.7 Phase 2 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable
Radiation Protection Standards – Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Nearest
Resident between BHV1&BHV2
Infant Effective 2.49E-01 25 1.0%
Bone 1.30E+00 25 5.2%
Avg. Lung 1.10E+00 25 4.4%
Child Effective 1.38E-01 25 0.6%
Bone 1.12E+00 25 4.5%
Avg. Lung 5.29E-01 25 2.1%
Teenage Effective 9.72E-02 25 0.4%
Bone 1.45E+00 25 5.8%
Avg. Lung 2.75E-01 25 1.1%
Adult Effective 7.96E-02 25 0.3%
Bone 1.13E+00 25 4.5%
Avg. Lung 2.27E-01 25 0.9%
BHV-1
Infant Effective 5.42E-01 25 2.2%
Bone 2.60E+00 25 10.4%
Avg. Lung 2.66E+00 25 10.6%
Child Effective 3.03E-01 25 1.2%
Bone 2.24E+00 25 9.0%
Avg. Lung 1.29E+00 25 5.2%
Teenage Effective 2.10E-01 25 0.8%
Bone 2.94E+00 25 11.8%
Avg. Lung 6.71E-01 25 2.7%
Adult Effective 1.71E-01 25 0.7%
Bone 2.26E+00 25 9.0%
Avg. Lung 5.55E-01 25 2.2%
BHV-2
Infant Effective 1.50E-01 25 0.6%
Bone 7.61E-01 25 3.0%
Avg. Lung 5.70E-01 25 2.3%
Child Effective 7.85E-02 25 0.3%
Bone 6.50E-01 25 2.6%
Avg. Lung 2.69E-01 25 1.1%
Teenage Effective 5.52E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 8.38E-01 25 3.4%
Avg. Lung 1.39E-01 25 0.6%
Adult Effective 4.49E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 6.56E-01 25 2.6%
Avg. Lung 1.14E-01 25 0.5%
1) Residential receptors assume 100% occupancy.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Management System Cells 5A and 5B for the White Mesa
Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-15
Table B.7 (Cont’d) Phase 2 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable Radiation Protection Standards- Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Potential Ute Tribe Resident (Nearest)
Infant Effective 4.49E-01 25 1.8%
Bone 2.58E+00 25 10.3%
Avg. Lung 2.02E+00 25 8.1%
Child Effective 2.39E-01 25 1.0%
Bone 2.13E+00 25 8.5%
Avg. Lung 9.69E-01 25 3.9%
Teenage Effective 1.63E-01 25 0.7%
Bone 2.50E+00 25 10.0%
Avg. Lung 5.04E-01 25 2.0%
Adult Effective 1.44E-01 25 0.6%
Bone 2.16E+00 25 8.6%
Avg. Lung 4.17E-01 25 1.7%
Blanding
Infant Effective 8.36E-02 25 0.3%
Bone 3.50E-01 25 1.4%
Avg. Lung 2.36E-01 25 0.9%
Child Effective 3.71E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 2.94E-01 25 1.2%
Avg. Lung 1.05E-01 25 0.4%
Teenage Effective 2.56E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 3.79E-01 25 1.5%
Avg. Lung 5.35E-02 25 0.2%
Adult Effective 2.02E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 2.96E-01 25 1.2%
Avg. Lung 4.31E-02 25 0.2%
White Mesa
Infant Effective 3.04E-01 25 1.2%
Bone 2.13E+00 25 8.5%
Avg. Lung 1.09E+00 25 4.4%
Child Effective 1.64E-01 25 0.7%
Bone 1.76E+00 25 7.0%
Avg. Lung 5.18E-01 25 2.1%
Teenage Effective 1.16E-01 25 0.5%
Bone 2.03E+00 25 8.1%
Avg. Lung 2.68E-01 25 1.1%
Adult Effective 1.05E-01 25 0.4%
Bone 1.78E+00 25 7.1%
Avg. Lung 2.21E-01 25 0.9%

Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-16
Table B.8 Phase 2 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable
Radiation Protection Standards – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
Industrial – East 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Child Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Teenage Effective 1.16E-01 25 0.5%
Bone 1.70E+00 25 6.8%
Avg. Lung 3.68E-01 25 1.5%
Adult Effective 9.66E-02 25 0.4%
Bone 1.33E+00 25 5.3%
Avg. Lung 3.04E-01 25 1.2%
Industrial - North 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Child Effective 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0.0%
Teenage Effective 5.94E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 7.99E-01 25 3.2%
Avg. Lung 2.04E-01 25 0.8%
Adult Effective 4.84E-02 25 0.2%
Bone 6.14E-01 25 2.5%
Avg. Lung 1.69E-01 25 0.7%
Receptor east of new Cell
5A/5B 1)
Infant Effective 0.00E+00 25 0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0%
Child Effective 0.00E+00 25 0%
Bone 0.00E+00 25 0%
Avg. Lung 0.00E+00 25 0%
Teenage Effective 1.20E-01 25 0%
Bone 1.68E+00 25 7%
Avg. Lung 4.22E-01 25 2%
Adult Effective 1.04E-01 25 0%
Bone 1.41E+00 25 6%
Avg. Lung 3.49E-01 25 1%
1) Assumes occupancy of 8 hr/day for 50 weeks a year.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-17
Table B.8 (Cont’d) Phase 2 – Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments with Applicable Radiation Protection Standards – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Applicable Limit (mrem/yr) Fraction of Limit
West of Tails – NR
2)
Infant Effective 1.26E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 7.17E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 6.25E-02 25 0.3%
Child Effective 6.90E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 5.95E-02 25 0.2%
Avg. Lung 3.03E-02 25 0.1%
Teenage Effective 4.68E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 6.94E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 1.58E-02 25 0.1%
Adult Effective 4.18E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 6.02E-02 25 0.2%
Avg. Lung 1.31E-02 25 0.1%
SW Camper – NR 2)
Infant Effective 1.35E-02 25 0.1%
Bone 1.05E-01 25 0.4%
Avg. Lung 5.41E-02 25 0.2%
Child Effective 7.82E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 8.67E-02 25 0.3%
Avg. Lung 2.60E-02 25 0.1%
Teenage Effective 5.60E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 9.97E-02 25 0.4%
Avg. Lung 1.35E-02 25 0.1%
Adult Effective 5.10E-03 25 0.0%
Bone 8.78E-02 25 0.4%
Avg. Lung 1.12E-02 25 0.0%
2) Assumes 14 days/yr of exposure while on federally-owned public lands.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-18
Table B.9 Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and
Phase 2 – Residential Receptors 1)
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 2
Δ Estimated Doses
Nearest Resident
between BHV1&BHV2
Infant Effective 2.66E-01 2.49E-01 -6.4%
Bone 1.49E+00 1.30E+00 -12.8%
Avg. Lung 1.11E+00 1.10E+00 -0.9%
Child Effective 1.49E-01 1.38E-01 -7.4%
Bone 1.28E+00 1.12E+00 -12.5%
Avg. Lung 5.33E-01 5.29E-01 -0.8%
Teenage Effective 1.06E-01 9.72E-02 -8.3%
Bone 1.65E+00 1.45E+00 -12.1%
Avg. Lung 2.77E-01 2.75E-01 -0.7%
Adult Effective 8.73E-02 7.96E-02 -8.8%
Bone 1.30E+00 1.13E+00 -13.1%
Avg. Lung 2.28E-01 2.27E-01 -0.4%
BHV-1
Infant Effective 5.82E-01 5.42E-01 -6.9% Bone 3.14E+00 2.60E+00 -17.2% Avg. Lung 2.68E+00 2.66E+00 -0.7% Child Effective 3.33E-01 3.03E-01 -9.0% Bone 2.70E+00 2.24E+00 -17.0% Avg. Lung 1.30E+00 1.29E+00 -0.8%
Teenage Effective 2.35E-01 2.10E-01 -10.6%
Bone 3.51E+00 2.94E+00 -16.2%
Avg. Lung 6.76E-01 6.71E-01 -0.7%
Adult Effective 1.92E-01 1.71E-01 -10.9%
Bone 2.73E+00 2.26E+00 -17.2%
Avg. Lung 5.58E-01 5.55E-01 -0.5%
BHV-2
Infant Effective 1.60E-01 1.50E-01 -6.3%
Bone 8.44E-01 7.61E-01 -9.8%
Avg. Lung 5.79E-01 5.70E-01 -1.6%
Child Effective 8.38E-02 7.85E-02 -6.3%
Bone 7.20E-01 6.50E-01 -9.7%
Avg. Lung 2.72E-01 2.69E-01 -1.1%
Teenage Effective 5.94E-02 5.52E-02 -7.1%
Bone 9.24E-01 8.38E-01 -9.3%
Avg. Lung 1.41E-01 1.39E-01 -1.4%
Adult Effective 4.83E-02 4.49E-02 -7.0%
Bone 7.27E-01 6.56E-01 -9.8%
Avg. Lung 1.15E-01 1.14E-01 -0.9%
1) Residential receptors assume 100% occupancy.

Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-19
Table B.9 (Cont’d) Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and Phase 2 – Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 2
Δ Estimated Doses
Potential
Ute Tribe Resident
(Nearest)
Infant Effective 4.37E-01 4.49E-01 2.7%
Bone 2.33E+00 2.58E+00 10.7%
Avg. Lung 2.01E+00 2.02E+00 0.5%
Child Effective 2.29E-01 2.39E-01 4.4%
Bone 1.92E+00 2.13E+00 10.9%
Avg. Lung 9.67E-01 9.69E-01 0.2%
Teenage Effective 1.53E-01 1.63E-01 6.5%
Bone 2.26E+00 2.50E+00 10.6%
Avg. Lung 5.03E-01 5.04E-01 0.2%
Adult Effective 1.35E-01 1.44E-01 6.7%
Bone 1.94E+00 2.16E+00 11.3%
Avg. Lung 4.16E-01 4.17E-01 0.2%
Blanding
Infant Effective 8.97E-02 8.36E-02 -6.8%
Bone 3.76E-01 3.50E-01 -6.9%
Avg. Lung 2.43E-01 2.36E-01 -2.9%
Child Effective 3.93E-02 3.71E-02 -5.6%
Bone 3.14E-01 2.94E-01 -6.4%
Avg. Lung 1.07E-01 1.05E-01 -1.9%
Teenage Effective 2.71E-02 2.56E-02 -5.5%
Bone 4.04E-01 3.79E-01 -6.2%
Avg. Lung 5.44E-02 5.35E-02 -1.7%
Adult Effective 2.14E-02 2.02E-02 -5.6%
Bone 3.17E-01 2.96E-01 -6.6%
Avg. Lung 4.37E-02 4.31E-02 -1.4%
White Mesa
Infant Effective 2.98E-01 3.04E-01 2.0%
Bone 1.98E+00 2.13E+00 7.6%
Avg. Lung 1.09E+00 1.09E+00 0.0%
Child Effective 1.58E-01 1.64E-01 3.8%
Bone 1.63E+00 1.76E+00 8.0%
Avg. Lung 5.17E-01 5.18E-01 0.2%
Teenage Effective 1.11E-01 1.16E-01 4.5%
Bone 1.89E+00 2.03E+00 7.4%
Avg. Lung 2.68E-01 2.68E-01 0.0%
Adult Effective 9.93E-02 1.05E-01 5.7%
Bone 1.65E+00 1.78E+00 7.9%
Avg. Lung 2.21E-01 2.21E-01 0.0%

Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-20
Table B.10 Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and
Phase 2 – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 2
Δ Estimated Doses
BHV-5 (Industrial - East) – NR 1)
Infant Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Child Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Teenage Effective 1.37E-01 1.16E-01 -15.3%
Bone 2.19E+00 1.70E+00 -22.7%
Avg. Lung 3.70E-01 3.68E-01 -0.6%
Adult Effective 1.16E-01 9.66E-02 -16.4%
Bone 1.75E+00 1.33E+00 -24.2%
Avg. Lung 3.06E-01 3.04E-01 -0.7%
Industrial - North – NR 1)
Infant Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Child Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Teenage Effective 6.39E-02 5.94E-02 -7.1%
Bone 9.20E-01 7.99E-01 -13.2%
Avg. Lung 2.05E-01 2.04E-01 -0.4%
Adult Effective 5.34E-02 4.84E-02 -9.4%
Bone 7.31E-01 6.14E-01 -15.9%
Avg. Lung 1.70E-01 1.69E-01 -0.5%
Receptor
east of new Cell 5A/5B 1)
Infant Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Child Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Teenage Effective 1.70E-01 1.20E-01 -29.4%
Bone 2.88E+00 1.68E+00 -41.4%
Avg. Lung 4.32E-01 4.22E-01 -2.1%
Adult Effective 1.50E-01 1.04E-01 -30.7%
Bone 2.47E+00 1.41E+00 -42.7%
Avg. Lung 3.56E-01 3.49E-01 -1.9%
1) Assumes occupancy of 8 hr/day for 50 weeks a year.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-21
Table B.10 (Cont’d) Comparison of 40 CFR 190 Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and Phase 2 – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr)
Phase 2
Δ Estimated
Doses
West of Tails -
NR
Infant Effective 1.25E-02 1.26E-02 0.6%
Bone 7.10E-02 7.17E-02 1.1%
Avg. Lung 6.25E-02 6.25E-02 0.0%
Child Effective 6.87E-03 6.90E-03 0.6%
Bone 5.87E-02 5.95E-02 1.3%
Avg. Lung 3.03E-02 3.03E-02 0.0%
Teenage Effective 4.64E-03 4.68E-03 0.8%
Bone 6.87E-02 6.94E-02 1.1%
Avg. Lung 1.58E-02 1.58E-02 0.0%
Adult Effective 4.14E-03 4.18E-03 0.9%
Bone 5.91E-02 6.02E-02 1.9%
Avg. Lung 1.31E-02 1.31E-02 0.0%
SW Camper - NR
Infant Effective 1.25E-02 1.35E-02 8.6%
Bone 8.86E-02 1.05E-01 18.2%
Avg. Lung 5.33E-02 5.41E-02 1.4%
Child Effective 7.10E-03 7.82E-03 10.3%
Bone 7.33E-02 8.67E-02 18.3%
Avg. Lung 2.58E-02 2.60E-02 0.9%
Teenage Effective 4.99E-03 5.60E-03 12.3%
Bone 8.48E-02 9.97E-02 17.6%
Avg. Lung 1.34E-02 1.35E-02 0.9%
Adult Effective 4.53E-03 5.10E-03 12.7%
Bone 7.44E-02 8.78E-02 18.0%
Avg. Lung 1.11E-02 1.12E-02 0.7%

Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-22
Table B.11 Comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and
Phase 2 – Residential Receptors 1)
Location Age Group Organ
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 2
Δ Estimated Doses
Nearest Resident between BHV1&BHV2
Infant Effective 3.0E+00 3.1E+00 4.3%
Bone 1.6E+00 1.4E+00 -11.5%
Avg. Lung 3.8E+00 4.0E+00 3.6%
Child Effective 2.9E+00 3.0E+00 4.9%
Bone 1.4E+00 1.2E+00 -11.8%
Avg. Lung 3.3E+00 3.4E+00 4.6%
Teenage Effective 2.8E+00 3.0E+00 4.9%
Bone 1.8E+00 1.6E+00 -10.8%
Avg. Lung 3.0E+00 3.2E+00 4.7%
Adult Effective 2.8E+00 3.0E+00 5.0%
Bone 1.4E+00 1.2E+00 -11.6%
Avg. Lung 3.0E+00 3.1E+00 5.1%
BHV-1
Infant Effective 5.3E+00 5.5E+00 3.0%
Bone 3.3E+00 2.8E+00 -16.2%
Avg. Lung 7.4E+00 7.6E+00 2.4%
Child Effective 5.1E+00 5.2E+00 3.4%
Bone 2.9E+00 2.4E+00 -15.8%
Avg. Lung 6.0E+00 6.2E+00 3.3%
Teenage Effective 5.0E+00 5.1E+00 3.6%
Bone 3.7E+00 3.1E+00 -15.2%
Avg. Lung 5.4E+00 5.6E+00 3.7%
Adult Effective 4.9E+00 5.1E+00 3.7%
Bone 2.9E+00 2.4E+00 -16.0%
Avg. Lung 5.3E+00 5.5E+00 3.8%
BHV-2
Infant Effective 1.9E+00 2.0E+00 5.2%
Bone 8.9E-01 8.1E-01 -9.0%
Avg. Lung 2.4E+00 2.5E+00 4.2%
Child Effective 1.9E+00 2.0E+00 5.9%
Bone 7.8E-01 7.1E-01 -8.5%
Avg. Lung 2.1E+00 2.2E+00 5.4%
Teenage Effective 1.8E+00 2.0E+00 6.0%
Bone 1.0E+00 9.4E-01 -8.1%
Avg. Lung 1.9E+00 2.0E+00 5.7%
Adult Effective 1.8E+00 1.9E+00 6.0%
Bone 7.9E-01 7.2E-01 -8.5%
Avg. Lung 1.9E+00 2.0E+00 5.8%
1) Residential receptors assume 100% occupancy.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-23
Table B.11 (Cont’d) Comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and Phase 2 – Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 2
Δ Estimated Doses
Potential Ute
Tribe Resident (Nearest)
Infant Effective 8.2E+00 8.9E+00 8.3%
Bone 2.5E+00 2.8E+00 10.8%
Avg. Lung 9.8E+00 1.0E+01 6.4%
Child Effective 8.0E+00 8.7E+00 8.6%
Bone 2.2E+00 2.4E+00 10.6%
Avg. Lung 8.7E+00 9.4E+00 7.7%
Teenage Effective 7.9E+00 8.6E+00 8.7%
Bone 2.6E+00 2.9E+00 10.2%
Avg. Lung 8.3E+00 8.9E+00 8.2%
Adult Effective 7.9E+00 8.6E+00 8.6%
Bone 2.2E+00 2.4E+00 10.5%
Avg. Lung 8.2E+00 8.9E+00 8.3%
Blanding
Infant Effective 1.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.9%
Bone 4.0E-01 3.8E-01 -5.7%
Avg. Lung 1.3E+00 1.4E+00 5.2%
Child Effective 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 5.2%
Bone 3.6E-01 3.4E-01 -4.7%
Avg. Lung 1.2E+00 1.3E+00 5.8%
Teenage Effective 1.1E+00 1.2E+00 6.2%
Bone 5.0E-01 4.8E-01 -3.6%
Avg. Lung 1.2E+00 1.2E+00 5.2%
Adult Effective 1.1E+00 1.2E+00 6.2%
Bone 1.8E+00 2.0E+00 8.2%
Avg. Lung 1.1E+00 1.2E+00 6.1%
White Mesa
Infant Effective 5.3E+00 5.9E+00 11.2%
Bone 2.1E+00 2.3E+00 7.6%
Avg. Lung 6.1E+00 6.7E+00 9.6%
Child Effective 5.2E+00 5.8E+00 11.5%
Bone 1.8E+00 1.9E+00 8.4%
Avg. Lung 5.6E+00 6.2E+00 10.6%
Teenage Effective 5.2E+00 5.8E+00 11.6%
Bone 2.2E+00 2.3E+00 7.9%
Avg. Lung 5.3E+00 5.9E+00 11.1%
Adult Effective 5.1E+00 5.7E+00 11.7%
Bone 1.8E+00 2.0E+00 8.2%
Avg. Lung 5.3E+00 5.9E+00 11.2%

Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-24
Table B.12 Comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and
Phase 2 – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 2
Δ Estimated Doses
BHV-5 (Industrial - East) 1)
Infant Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Child Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Teenage Effective 2.65E+00 2.69E+00 1.7%
Bone 2.31E+00 1.82E+00 -21.1%
Avg. Lung 2.88E+00 2.95E+00 2.4%
Adult Effective 2.63E+00 2.67E+00 1.7%
Bone 1.87E+00 1.45E+00 -22.5%
Avg. Lung 2.83E+00 2.88E+00 1.6%
Industrial – North 1)
Infant Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Child Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Teenage Effective 1.51E+00 1.57E+00 3.6%
Bone 9.70E-01 8.52E-01 -12.2%
Avg. Lung 1.65E+00 1.71E+00 3.5%
Adult Effective 1.50E+00 1.55E+00 3.7%
Bone 7.74E-01 6.60E-01 -14.7%
Avg. Lung 1.62E+00 1.67E+00 3.5%
Receptor east of new Cell 5A/5B 1)
Infant Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Child Effective - - -
Bone - - -
Avg. Lung - - -
Teenage Effective 3.42E+00 3.45E+00 0.7%
Bone 2.99E+00 1.80E+00 -39.8%
Avg. Lung 3.70E+00 3.74E+00 1.2%
Adult Effective 3.40E+00 3.45E+00 1.3%
Bone 2.56E+00 1.52E+00 -40.6%
Avg. Lung 3.61E+00 3.68E+00 1.9%
1) Assumes occupancy of 8 hr/day for 50 weeks a year.
Proposed Development of New Tailings Cell 5A and 5B for the White Mesa Uranium Mill

arcadis.com
351418-000 B-25
Table B.12 (Cont’d) Comparison of R313-15-301(1)(a) Annual Dose Commitments between Phase 1 and Phase 2 – Non-Residential Receptors
Location Age Group Organ Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 1
Estimated Dose (mrem/yr) Phase 2
Δ Estimated Doses
West of Tails 2)
Infant Effective 2.35E-01 2.56E-01 9.0%
Bone 7.56E-02 7.71E-02 2.0%
Avg. Lung 2.85E-01 3.06E-01 7.4%
Child Effective 2.30E-01 2.51E-01 9.2%
Bone 6.41E-02 6.56E-02 2.4%
Avg. Lung 2.53E-01 2.74E-01 8.3%
Teenage Effective 2.27E-01 2.49E-01 9.3%
Bone 7.59E-02 7.75E-02 2.0%
Avg. Lung 2.39E-01 2.60E-01 8.8%
Adult Effective 2.27E-01 2.48E-01 9.5%
Bone 6.48E-02 6.64E-02 2.4%
Avg. Lung 2.36E-01 2.57E-01 8.9%
SW Camper
2)
Infant Effective 3.13E-01 3.58E-01 14.3%
Bone 9.51E-02 1.12E-01 18.1%
Avg. Lung 3.54E-01 3.99E-01 12.7%
Child Effective 3.08E-01 3.53E-01 14.4%
Bone 8.25E-02 9.70E-02 17.7%
Avg. Lung 3.27E-01 3.71E-01 13.4%
Teenage Effective 3.06E-01 3.51E-01 14.4%
Bone 1.00E-01 1.17E-01 16.5%
Avg. Lung 3.14E-01 3.58E-01 14.0%
Adult Effective 3.06E-01 3.50E-01 14.4%
Bone 8.36E-02 9.86E-02 17.9%
Avg. Lung 3.12E-01 3.56E-01 14.1%
2) Assumes 14 days/yr of exposure while on federally-owned public lands.

Arcadis Canada Inc.

121 Granton Drive, Suite 12
Richmond Hill, ON L4B 3N4
Tel [phone]
Arcadis.com

ATTACHMENT H
·)-· 'a!-3
""T37S --
)
' \
\
'
. ' \
.... _ ~
Legend
:' r'
(u
N {N I
0::: '
I
I (
I l I
I' ~ (
}'
\..
+ Air Monitoring Station CJ Township and Range
U U Property Boundary c=J Section
\., •,
'
' '·
(
I
,
' )
WHITE MESA MILL
t
I
\
D Tailings Cell L Pond Date: By: County: San Juan Slate: Utah
---Road Drainage
---Canyon Rim Coordinate System: NAD 1---+---11
1983 StatePlane Utah
South FIPS 4303 Feet
Location: -
ATTACHMENT B
PARTICULATE MONITORING STATIONS
Author: dkapostasy Dale 7/2/201 8 Drafted By: dkapostasy

March 7, 2019

Ms. Kathy Weinel
Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc.
225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600
Lakewood, Colorado 80228

Re: Numerical Transport Simulations to Support Proposed Cell 5A and 5B Well Spacing

Dear Ms. Weinel,

Numerical flow and transport simulations have been performed to evaluate the ability of
proposed new monitoring wells to detect the potential impacts of hypothetical ‘point-source
leaks’ on perched groundwater beneath the downgradient (southern) margin of proposed cells 5A
and 5B, at the White Mesa Uranium Mill (the site or the Mill) near Blanding, Utah.
Overview
The numerical flow and transport simulations represent an update to simulations performed in
year 2001 (HGC, 2001). As with HGC (2001) the simulations focus on hypothetical 1 gallon per
minute (gpm) or 0.1 gpm ‘point-source leaks’ located halfway between existing or proposed
wells along the downgradient (southern) margin of the tailings management system (TMS). Any
such ‘leaks’ would be the most difficult to detect because they would occur at the downgradient
edge of the proposed cells at the maximum distance from the two nearest wells. Because of the
nearest wells’ position along the downgradient edge of the TMS, these wells will be mainly
cross-gradient of the hypothetical ‘leak’.
The results of the updated simulations will be used to evaluate the adequacy of the spacing of
wells MW-42 through MW-46, proposed to be located along the downgradient (southern) margin
of proposed cells 5A and 5B (Figure 1). Note that, based on fourth quarter, 2018 water levels,
proposed well MW-41 is located cross-gradient of proposed cell 5A, and proposed and existing
wells MW-47 and MW-17 are located cross- to up-gradient of proposed cell 5B (Figure 1).
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 2

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
In general, factors that are expected to make ‘point-source leaks’ at the downgradient margin of
proposed cells 5A and 5A more difficult to detect using proposed wells include:
- Potentially narrow footprint of the groundwater impacts. The narrower the footprint the
more difficult detection will be if the ‘leak’ is located between monitoring wells. The
footprint is expected to decrease as both the vadose thickness and the ratio of horizontal
to vertical permeability decrease. The thinner the vadose zone and the smaller the ratio of
horizontal to vertical permeability, the smaller the spreading in the vadose zone before
groundwater is contacted, and the longer the time likely needed for detection of the
impact by wells along the downgradient margin of the proposed cells.
- Potentially large dilution within the perched groundwater. Dilution will increase as both
saturated thickness and rate of groundwater movement increase. As the hydraulic
conductivity, hydraulic gradient, and saturated thickness increase, the greater the volume
of unimpacted perched groundwater that is available to dilute the seepage, and the longer
the time likely needed for detection of the impact by wells along the downgradient
margin of the proposed cells.
With regard to potential spreading of the seepage footprint within the vadose zone, all
simulations are conservative in assuming a 10:1 ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability. This
ratio is conservatively small for a highly layered medium such as either the Dakota Sandstone or
Burro Canyon Formation (HGC, 2018). Using the 10:1 ratio will limit lateral spreading of
simulated seepage within the vadose zone and likely cause underestimation of the lateral
(including cross-gradient) impact of seepage on simulated groundwater.
In addition, hydraulic gradients and saturated thicknesses generally increase from west to east
along the downgradient (southern) margin of proposed cells 5A and 5B. The reduction in spacing
between water level contours shown in Figure 1 indicate the increase in magnitude of the
hydraulic gradient from west to east, and cross sections provided in HGC (2018) indicate the
increase in saturated thickness from west to east. Therefore, dilution of potential seepage, and the
time likely needed for detection of potential impacts by wells along the downgradient margin of
the proposed cells, is expected to increase from west to east.
Two sets of simulations were performed: in one set the source term is presumed to be located
between proposed wells MW-44 and MW-45; and in the other set the source term is presumed to
be located between proposed wells MW-45 and MW-46 (Figure 1). Both are conservative
locations to perform the simulations because of the relatively large saturated thicknesses at these
locations. Simulations assuming a source term between MW-45 and MW-46 are considered
‘worst-case’ because saturated thicknesses and hydraulic gradients within this area are relatively
large and will result in the greatest dilution of seepage.
The 2001 simulations are updated because, due to the relative paucity of water level and
hydraulic conductivity data at that time, they overestimated hydraulic conductivities and
hydraulic gradients. Hydraulic conductivities and hydraulic gradients used in the 2001
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 3

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
simulations were based on measurements from only nine locations; the nine wells located closest
to the TMS at that time.
Since 2001, the number of wells within and along or near the margins of the existing TMS has
approximately tripled; wells MW-23 through MW-34 have been installed within and along the
boundaries of the TMS; and DR-series piezometers DR-7, DR-11, DR-12 and DR-13 have been
installed immediately downgradient of the existing TMS (Figure 1). At these installations water
level data have been obtained from all except MW-33 (which is dry), and hydraulic conductivity
data have been obtained from all but MW-33, MW-34, and DR-12 (which have insufficient
saturated thicknesses).
Furthermore, the 2001 simulations focused on cell 3 rather than proposed cells 5A and 5B which
are the focus of these updated simulations. As will be discussed below, taking into account data
from MW-17, DR-11, DR-12 and DR-13, located beneath or in the immediate vicinity of
proposed cells 5A and 5B, average hydraulic conductivities and hydraulic gradients are lower
than for the existing TMS overall or as estimated in HGC (2001).
Numerical Model
The numerical model used for the simulations was constructed using TRACRN (Travis and
Birdsell, 1988). TRACRN is a fully 3-dimensional integrated finite difference computer code
developed at Los Alamos National Laboratories that is capable of simulating both liquid and gas
flow, and solute transport, within variably saturated porous media. TRACRN has previously
been used for other types of flow and transport modeling at the White Mesa site.
The 3-D numerical model extended 9,650 feet (ft) in both the x (easting) and y (northing)
directions, and to a depth of 95 feet. The model domain consists of 50 nodes in the x (east-west)
direction, 50 nodes in the y (north-south) direction, and 20 layers, for a total of 50,000 nodes.
The x and y spacings are uniformly 200 feet except at the locations of the simulated hypothetical
‘leaks’ where the grid mesh is refined to 50ft x 50ft (Figures 2A and 2B).
Layer spacing is 5 feet except in the vicinity of the water table where the layering is refined to
2.5 feet. The uppermost model layer is 10 feet thick and is meant to represent the lower portion
of cell 5B. The 50ft x 50ft source cell is located within this layer and is used to simulate the
hypothetical ‘leak’. The area of the source term represents less than 1% of the area of either
proposed cell 5A or 5B. The layer immediately beneath the uppermost layer represents the top of
bedrock. This construction is consistent with an average depth to bedrock beneath proposed cells
5A and 5B of approximately 9 feet based on lithologic logs from DR-11, DR-12, DR-13 and
MW-17 (HGC, 2018). The lower 19 layers of the model represented sandstone. The sandstone
(composed of Dakota Sandstone and underlying Burro Canyon Formation) hosts the saturated
zone within the model domain.
The average vadose bedrock thickness beneath proposed cells 5A and 5B is approximately 74
feet (based on lithologic logs from DR-11, DR-12, DR-13 and MW-17 [HGC, 2018]).
Simulations assuming a hypothetical ‘leak’ between MW-44 and MW-45 use a conservatively
small vadose bedrock thickness of approximately 67.5 feet, and those assuming a hypothetical
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 4

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
‘leak’ between MW-45 and MW-46 use a conservatively small vadose bedrock thickness of
approximately 60 feet.
The horizontal conductivity assigned to the sandstone was 2.76 x 10-5 centimeters per second
(cm/s) [0.077 feet per day (ft/day)]. The vertical conductivity (2.76 x 10-6 cm/s) was 10% of the
horizontal and porosity was uniformly 18%.
The assigned hydraulic conductivity was based on data provided in Table 1. Table 1 shows the
geometric average hydraulic conductivity of wells beneath and along (or near) the margins of:
1. the existing TMS (including MW-17 but no DR-series piezometers nor MW-3
[abandoned]) is approximately 5.6 x 10-5 cm/s;
2. the existing TMS and proposed cells 5A and 5B (including MW-3 [abandoned], MW-17,
DR-11 and DR-13) is approximately 4.0 x 10-5 cm/s;
3. existing cells 4A and 4B and proposed cells 5A and 5B (including MW-3 [abandoned],
MW-17, DR-11 and DR-13) is approximately 2.76 x 10-5 cm/s;
4. proposed cells 5A and 5B only (wells MW-3 [abandoned], MW-14, MW-15, MW-17,
DR-11 and DR-13 only) is approximately 1.42 x 10-5 cm/s; and
5. only the downgradient portion of proposed cells 5A and 5B (wells MW-3 [abandoned],
MW-17, D-11 and DR-13 only) is approximately 4.83 x 10-6 cm/s.

Although the most representative hydraulic conductivity for the downgradient margin of
proposed cells 5A and 5B is 4.83 x 10-6 cm/s, to be conservative, the ‘middle’ value calculated
above, 2.76 x 10-5 cm/s (0.077 ft/day), was used in the simulations. By comparison, a hydraulic
conductivity of 6.6 x 10-5 cm/s, which exceeds the largest value calculated above, was used in
the 2001 simulations. Although the ‘middle’ value calculated above (2.76 x 10-5 cm/s) is lower
than the value used in the 2001 simulations, it is twice the value of 1.38 x 10-5 cm/s used in HGC
(2018) to calculate travel times between the TMS and Ruin Spring, and will result in
conservative overestimation of downgradient groundwater migration rates.
As discussed above, the vertical hydraulic conductivity was assumed to be 10% of the horizontal.
Assuming a vertical conductivity that is 10% of the horizontal is conservative and will result in
underestimation of lateral spreading within the vadose zone and consequently underestimate the
footprint of seepage impacting perched groundwater. In addition, the rate of vertical migration of
seepage will be overestimated, and the vertical travel time underestimated.
A relatively high-conductivity zone (2.8 ft/day) is represented within the upper layer of the
simulations to allow lateral flow from the simulated ‘leak’ within the 50ft x 50ft source cell. This
layer is needed to simulate larger ‘leaks’ (greater than about 0.2 gpm), which would otherwise
create significant heads in the source cell. Such heads could not exist beneath a cell having a
multiple liner system unless the cell were empty of tailings, filled with water, and the ‘leak’
consisted of a large ‘puncture’ that occurred at the same location in all liners, which is highly
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 5

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
unlikely. The impact of the high conductivity zone is to allow lateral spreading above the
bedrock beneath the bottom liner. Regardless, simulated groundwater impacts assuming a large
(1 gpm) ‘leak’ with or without this high conductivity zone are nearly identical as will be
discussed in the Results Section below.
Brooks-Corey unsaturated flow parameters (based generally on Case et al, 1983) were assigned
to all materials represented in the model. Model properties are summarized in Table 2.
Based on fourth quarter, 2018 data, the saturated thickness along the downgradient margins of
proposed cells 5A and 5B averages approximately 15 feet. The saturated thickness between
proposed wells MW-44 and MW-45 is approximately 17.5 feet, and is used in simulations
assuming a hypothetical ‘leak’ between MW-44 and MW-45.
‘Worst-case’ simulations assuming a hypothetical ‘leak’ between proposed wells MW-45 and
MW-46 focus on the southeastern downgradient margin of cell 5B, between MW-45 and MW-46
where the saturated thickness (approximately 25 ft) is larger. A saturated thickness of 25 feet is
therefore assigned to these ‘worst-case’ simulations.
The southwest (SW)-oriented hydraulic gradient imposed in the 2001 simulations directed flow
from cell 3 across the dry area later discovered beneath and SW of cell 4B. A south-southwest
(SSW) directed gradient was used in simulations assuming a hypothetical ‘leak’ between MW-44
and MW-45. Consistent with currently measured hydraulic gradient directions, the SSW-directed
gradient results in flow from the downgradient edge of cell 5B that is sub-parallel to the
structural high causing the dry areas (Figure 1) and indicates that the dry areas are likely to have
little impact on the simulation results.
However, for comparison, a set of simulations representing the dry areas were performed. Dry
areas were represented as very low conductivity (10-8 cm/s) material having thicknesses above
the model base equal to the initial saturated thickness. Groundwater flow was diverted around
these zones due to their low permeability but as saturated thicknesses increased due to the ‘leak’
groundwater could flow over them. Results of simulations representing the dry areas are nearly
identical to those without the dry areas as will be discussed in the Results Section below.
Therefore, dry areas were not represented except in this specific set of simulations.
Based on fourth quarter, 2018 water level data, the hydraulic gradient beneath the downgradient
margin of proposed cells 5A and 5B ranges from approximately 0.0139 feet per foot (ft/ft) to
approximately 0.0063 ft/ft, and averages 0.01 ft/ft. The average, 0.01 ft/ft, is also the
approximate gradient between the upgradient edge of cells 5A and 5B (at MW-15) and
downgradient well MW-3A. The hydraulic gradient along the downgradient margin of cell 5B
between MW-44 and MW-45 is also approximately 0.01 ft/ft. A hydraulic gradient of 0.01 ft/ft
(to the SSW) is therefore used in the simulations focused on a hypothetical ‘leak’ between MW-
44 and MW-45. By comparison, a larger hydraulic gradient of 0.016 ft/ft was used in the 2001
simulations.
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 6

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
The hydraulic gradient increases to approximately 0.015 ft/ft (to the SW) at the southeastern
extremity of cell 5B. Therefore, a SW-directed hydraulic gradient of 0.015 ft/ft is used in the
‘worst-case’ simulations focusing on the southeastern downgradient margin of cell 5B, between
MW-45 and MW-46.
No-flow boundary conditions were assigned to the upper and lower boundaries, and side
boundaries were assigned an ambient condition (constant pressure and saturation). Groundwater
entered the back (north) and right (east) boundaries, and exited the front (south) and left (west)
boundaries. The front and left boundaries had an additional condition imposed to ensure that the
concentration gradient across those boundaries was zero.
Mechanical dispersion is scale-dependent, and increases with heterogeneity and the scale of the
simulated flow field. Based on Gelhar et al (1992), longitudinal, transverse, and vertical
dispersivities should be set to approximately 10%, 1%, and 0.1% of the scale of the flow field,
respectively.
Assuming a hydraulic conductivity of 0.077 ft/day, a hydraulic gradient of 0.015 ft/ft, and a
porosity of 0.18, groundwater will migrate approximately 2.3 ft/year. The rate of 2.3 ft/year,
which is approximately 2.4 times the average rate of 0.96 ft/year calculated in HGC (2018) for
the shortest pathline between the TMS and Ruin Spring, will conservatively overestimate
downgradient plume migration rates.
Simulations were performed over a 400-year time period. Using the rate of 2.3 ft/year,
groundwater will migrate approximately 937 feet. Therefore, assuming relatively homogeneous
conditions, a longitudinal dispersivity of approximately 94 feet and a transverse dispersivity of
approximately 9.4 feet would be appropriate. However, due to the known heterogeneity of the
Burro Canyon Formation, effective dispersivities at the Mill are expected to be larger.
Dispersivities appropriate for the problem scale and known heterogeneity were assumed for most
of the simulations; however, for comparison, additional simulations were performed using
dispersivities that were half as large. As will be discussed below in the Results Section, reducing
dispersivities by half had little impact on the results, indicating that other factors, such as the
groundwater mounds developing beneath the hypothetical ‘leaks’, had a greater impact on lateral
spreading within perched groundwater than did mechanical dispersion.
As discussed above, based on the problem scale, longitudinal dispersivities of 94 feet (implying
transverse dispersivities of 9.4 feet) are appropriate (Gelhar et al 1992). Because of known
heterogeneity, slightly larger maximum longitudinal dispersivities of 100 feet (considered
‘moderate’ in magnitude) were assumed. Because the model grid was oriented along principal
compass directions, and hydraulic gradients ranged from SW to SSW, flow was not oriented
parallel to the principal grid directions. For simulations assuming a SSW gradient flow was more
N-S than E-W so the longitudinal direction was assumed to be N-S and the transverse direction
E-W. Longitudinal dispersivities of 50 to 100 feet (and corresponding transverse dispersivities of
5 to 10 feet) were assigned to these simulations. For simulations assuming a SW gradient, flow
was neither principally N-S or E-W, so N-S and E-W dispersivities were both assumed to be half
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 7

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
the longitudinal value assigned to the SSW simulations, and ranged from 25 to 50 feet (Table 2).
By comparison, due to the assumption of larger groundwater migration rates, longitudinal and
transverse dispersivities of 200 feet, and 20 feet, respectively, were assumed in the 2001
simulations.
The hypothetical ‘leaks’, representing 100% tailings solution, were assigned a concentration of
1.0. Solutes within this simulated solution are assumed to be conservative (no sorption,
volatilization, degradation or reaction with formation materials). All simulations assume that
perched groundwater is unimpacted initially, and that background concentrations of conservative
tailings solution constituents in the perched groundwater are zero.
An aqueous diffusion coefficient of 1 x 10-5 square centimeters per second (cm2/sec), appropriate
for most aqueous solutes, was used. A constrictivity coefficient of 0.1 was assigned to all
materials yielding an effective aqueous diffusion coefficient of 1 x 10-6 cm2/sec.
Simulation Results
Simulation results are provided in Figures 3A through 16D which show simulated impacts to
perched groundwater at 50, 100, 200, and 400 years of simulation time. Impacts include
increases in the proportion of tailings solution mixed with perched groundwater and increases in
saturated thicknesses. Contours shown in the Figures indicate either the simulated proportion of
tailings solution mixed with groundwater or the simulated increase in saturated thickness (in
feet) at the indicated simulation time. As discussed above, perched groundwater is assumed to be
unimpacted initially, consistent with groundwater monitoring at the site to date.
• Figures 3A through 6D show the simulated proportion of tailings solution mixed with
groundwater assuming hypothetical ‘leaks’ of 1 gpm or 0.1 gpm between proposed wells
MW-44 and MW-45, and between proposed wells MW-45 and MW-46.
• Figures 7A through 10D show the simulated increases in saturated thicknesses (in feet)
assuming hypothetical ‘leaks’ of 1 gpm or 0.1 gpm between proposed wells MW-44 and
MW-45, and between proposed wells MW-45 and MW-46.
• Figures 11A through 11D compare the simulated proportion of tailings solution mixed
with groundwater assuming a hypothetical ‘leak’ of 1 gpm between proposed wells MW-
44 and MW-45 with and without specification of high conductivity within the uppermost
model layer.
• Figures 12A through 12D compare the simulated proportion of tailings solution mixed
with groundwater assuming a hypothetical ‘leak’ of 1 gpm between proposed wells MW-
44 and MW-45 with and without representation of dry zones.
• Figures 13A through 14D compare the simulated proportion of tailings solution mixed
with groundwater assuming hypothetical ‘leaks’ of 1 gpm or 0.1 gpm between proposed
wells MW-44 and MW-45 assuming moderate and low dispersivities.
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 8

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
• Figures 15A through 16D compare the simulated proportion of tailings solution mixed
with groundwater assuming hypothetical ‘leaks’ of 1 gpm or 0.1 gpm between proposed
wells MW-45 and MW-46 assuming moderate and low dispersivities.

In all Figures showing the simulated proportions of tailings solution in groundwater, the 0.01
(1%), 0.1 (10%) and 0.9 (90%) contours are specified; however values are less than 0.9 in some
of the figures and the 0.9 contour is therefore not displayed. Even mixing 1% of the tailings
solution into unimpacted groundwater is expected to cause significant increases in conservative
tailings solution constituents. Assuming that the background concentration of a particular
conservative tailings solution constituent is negligible in groundwater, the simulated proportion
of tailings solution can be multiplied by the constituent concentration in the tailings solution to
yield the increase in concentration of the solute above the negligible background. When the
background concentration in groundwater is not negligible, the actual simulated concentration
can be calculated by:
Actual simulated groundwater concentration = (simulated proportion of tailings solution x
tailings constituent concentration) + [(1-simulated proportion of tailings solution) x
background constituent concentration]
As an example, assuming a chloride concentration in the tailings solution of approximately
10,000 mg/L, and a background chloride concentration in groundwater of 100 mg/L, a mixture of
1% tailings solution (0.01 contour) and 99% groundwater would yield a chloride concentration
of 199 mg/L, an increase of 99% above the 100 mg/L background.
As indicated in Figures 11A through 11D there are negligible differences between simulations
with and without high conductivity in the uppermost model layer. Likewise, as indicated in
Figures 12A through 12D, there are negligible differences between simulations with and without
representation of dry zones.
As discussed above, Figures 13A through 16D compare results of simulations using moderate
dispersivities with those using dispersivities that are 50% lower. As indicated in these Figures
and as discussed above, reducing dispersivities by half had little impact on the results, indicating
that other factors, such as the groundwater mounds developing beneath the hypothetical ‘leaks’,
had a greater impact on lateral spreading within perched groundwater than did mechanical
dispersion. The groundwater mounds also act to increase downgradient plume migration rates.
Figures 3A through 6D indicate that impacts to groundwater will be detected by proposed wells
along the southern margin of cells 5A and 5B more than 100 years before they would be detected
at the next closest downgradient well MW-3A. Assuming a hypothetical 1 gpm ‘leak’, impacts
would be detected along the cell margin in less than 50 years, and assuming a hypothetical 0.1
gpm ‘leak’, within 100 to 200 years.
Assuming a hypothetical 1 gpm ‘leak’, as shown in Figure 3A, the closest wells (MW-44 and
MW-45) are predicted to be impacted by a mixture of more than 10% tailings solution in less
than 50 years. As shown in Figure 7A, saturated thicknesses at the closest wells (MW-44 and
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 9

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
MW-45) are predicted to increase by approximately 10 feet within 50 years. Impacts of increased
constituent concentrations are not predicted to reach MW-3A until between 100 and 200 years
(Figure 3C).
Assuming a hypothetical 0.1 gpm ‘leak’, as shown in Figures 4B and 4C, the closest wells (MW-
44 and MW-45) are predicted to be impacted by a mixture of between 1% and 10% tailings
solution within 100 years, and by a mixture of 10% tailings solution within 200 years. As shown
in Figures 8B and 8C, saturated thicknesses at the closest wells (MW-44 and MW-45) are
predicted to increase by approximately 1 foot within 100 years; and by approximately 2 feet
within 200 years. Impacts of increased constituent concentrations are not predicted to reach MW-
3A until more than 400 years (Figure 4D).
Similar results are predicted for ‘worst case’ simulations assuming a hypothetical ‘leak’ between
MW-45 and MW-46.
Assuming a hypothetical 1 gpm ‘leak’ between MW-45 and MW-46, as shown in Figure 5A, the
closest wells (MW-45 and MW-46) are predicted to be impacted by a mixture of more than 10%
tailings solution within 50 years. As shown in Figure 9A, saturated thicknesses at the closest
wells (MW-45 and MW-46) are predicted to increase by approximately 10 feet within 50 years.
Impacts of increased constituent concentrations are not predicted to reach MW-3A until
approximately 200 years (Figure 5C).
Assuming a hypothetical 0.1 gpm ‘leak’ between MW-45 and MW-46, as shown in Figures 6A
through 6C, MW-45 is predicted to be impacted by a mixture of 1% tailings solution after
approximately 50 years, and by a mixture of 10% tailings solution in less than 200 years; and
MW-46 is predicted to be impacted by a mixture of between 1% and 10% tailings solution within
200 years. As shown in Figures 10B and 10C, the saturated thickness at MW-45 is predicted to
increase by approximately 1 foot within 100 years, and by approximately 2 feet within 200 years;
and the saturated thickness at MW-46 is predicted to increase more than 1 foot within 200 years.
Impacts of increased constituent concentrations are not predicted to reach MW-3A until more
than 400 years (Figure 6D).
Overall, simulations using reasonable but conservative assumptions indicate that significant
groundwater impacts would be expected to occur as a result of hypothetical ‘point-source leaks’
of 0.1 gpm or 1 gpm, and that the proposed groundwater monitoring well spacing is sufficient for
timely detection of potential impacts. As shown in the Figures, even under simulated ‘worst-
case’ conditions, the 0.01 (1% tailings solution) contours are predicted to spread sufficiently
cross-gradient to allow timely detection of impacts using the proposed well spacing. Likewise,
the proposed well spacing is sufficient for timely detection of simulated increases in saturated
thicknesses. Therefore, the proposed well spacing is expected to be more than adequate to detect
both changes in concentration and saturated thickness resulting from these hypothetical ‘leaks’.
In addition, assuming a 10:1 ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability likely results in
overestimation of the actual average vertical permeability in the simulated area and
underestimation of lateral spreading of seepage within the vadose zone. Underestimation of
Kathy Weinel
March 7, 2019
Page 10

H:\718000\Hydrpt2018\Cell5a_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\Modelingreport\Cell5A5B Fnl Modelingreport 03.07.19.Docx
lateral spreading within the vadose zone may result in underestimation of the lateral (including
cross-gradient) extent of potential impacts to groundwater. This assumption will also result in
underestimation of vadose travel times and cause more rapid development of impacts to
groundwater than is likely to occur in reality.
Conclusions
Using reasonable but conservative assumptions, simulations of hypothetical ‘point-source leaks’
ranging in magnitude from 0.1 gpm to 1 gpm at the downgradient margin of proposed cells 5A
and 5B indicate that even under simulated ‘worst-case’ conditions, potential impacts are
predicted to spread sufficiently cross-gradient to allow timely detection using the proposed well
spacing. In addition, the proposed well spacing is also acceptable based on the 2001 simulations
which relied on fewer data points but were generally more conservative. The proposed well
spacing is therefore expected to be more than adequate to detect both changes in concentration
and saturated thickness resulting from these hypothetical ‘leaks’.
Simulation results indicate that impacts to groundwater will be detected by proposed wells along
the southern margin of cells 5A and 5B more than 100 years before they would be detected at the
next closest downgradient well MW-3A. Assuming a hypothetical 1 gpm ‘leak’, impacts would
be detected along the cell margin in less than 50 years, and assuming a hypothetical 0.1 gpm
‘leak’, within 100 to 200 years.
Simulations assume a 10:1 ratio of horizontal to vertical permeability. This assumption will
likely result in overestimation of the actual average vertical permeability in the simulated area,
and underestimation of lateral spreading of seepage within the vadose zone. Underestimation of
lateral spreading within the vadose zone may result in underestimation of the lateral (including
cross-gradient) extent of potential impacts to groundwater. This assumption may also result in
underestimation of vadose travel times and cause more rapid development of impacts to
groundwater than is likely to occur in reality.

TABLES

TABLE 1
Hydraulic Conductivity Data
well k (cm/s)well k (cm/s)well k (cm/s)well k (cm/s)well k (cm/s)
MW-5 3.50E-06 MW-5 3.50E-06 MW-5 3.50E-06
MW-11 1.37E-03 MW-11 1.37E-03 MW-11 1.37E-03
MW-12 6.61E-05 MW-12 6.61E-05 MW-12 6.61E-05
MW-14 6.70E-04 MW-14 6.70E-04 MW-14 6.70E-04 MW-14 6.70E-04
MW-15 2.49E-05 MW-15 2.49E-05 MW-15 2.49E-05 MW-15 2.49E-05
MW-17 2.60E-05 MW-17 2.60E-05 MW-17 2.60E-05 MW-17 2.60E-05 MW-17 2.60E-05
MW-23 2.30E-07 MW-23 2.30E-07 MW-23 2.30E-07
MW-24 4.16E-05 MW-24 4.16E-05
MW-25 1.10E-04 MW-25 1.10E-04 MW-25 1.10E-04
MW-26 7.90E-05 MW-26 7.90E-05
MW-28 1.70E-06 MW-28 1.70E-06
MW-29 1.10E-04 MW-29 1.10E-04
MW-30 1.00E-04 MW-30 1.00E-04
MW-31 7.10E-05 MW-31 7.10E-05
MW-32 3.00E-05 MW-32 3.00E-05
MW-35 3.48E-04 MW-35 3.48E-04 MW-35 3.48E-04
MW-36 4.51E-04 MW-36 4.51E-04 MW-36 4.51E-04
MW-37 1.28E-05 MW-37 1.28E-05 MW-37 1.28E-05 MW-37 1.28E-05
TW4-16 1.00E-04 TW4-16 1.00E-04
TW4-20 5.90E-05 TW4-20 5.90E-05
TW4-22 1.30E-04 TW4-22 1.30E-04
TW4-24 1.60E-04 TW4-24 1.60E-04
TW4-37 1.43E-04 TW4-37 1.43E-04
TW4-39 5.27E-05 TW4-39 5.27E-05
DR-11 8.88E-06 DR-11 8.88E-06 DR-11 8.88E-06 DR-11 8.88E-06
DR-13 5.90E-06 DR-13 5.90E-06 DR-13 5.90E-06 DR-13 5.90E-06
MW-3 4.00E-07 MW-3 4.00E-07 MW-3 4.00E-07 MW-3 4.00E-07
geomean:5.58E-05 geomean:4.00E-05 geomean:2.76E-05 geomean:1.42E-05 geomean:4.83E-06
Notes:
TMS = tailings management system
k = hydraulic conductivity
cm/s = centimeters per second
values for MW-11 and MW-14 are geometric averages of pumping and recovery test values
cells 5A and 5B
cells 5A and 5B
mid to downgradientexisting cells only
existing cells and
cells 5A and 5B
cells 4A and 4B
and cells 5A and 5B
H:\718000\hydrpt2018\cell5A_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\ModelingReport\TablesModelingReport.xlsx: table 1
TABLE 2
Hydraulic and Transport Properties
Property Sandstone Upper Layer
horizontal conductivity (ft/d) 0.077 2.8
vertical conductivity (ft/d) 0.0077 0.28
porosity 0.18 0.18
irreducible water saturation 0.2 0.2
bubbling pressure (dynes/cm2)2.0E+04 2.0E+04
longitudinal dispersivity range (ft) 25 - 100 25 - 100
transverse dispersivity range (ft) 5 - 10 5 - 10
vertical dispersivity range (ft) 0.25 - 1 0.25 - 1
constrictivity coefficient 0.1 0.1
aqueous diffusion coefficient (cm2/s)1.0E-05 1.0E-05
gaseous diffusion coefficient (cm2/s)0.1 0.1
Notes:
ft = feet
ft/d = feet per day
dynes/cm 2 = dynes per square centimeter
cm 2 /s = square centmeters per second

H:\718000\hydrpt2018\cell5A_B\DWMRC_Interrogatories\ModelingReport\TablesModelingReport.xlsx: table 2

FIGURES
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
(not included)
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED HYDRAULIC GRADIENT DIRECTIONS AND
KRIGED 4th QUARTER 2018 WATER LEVELS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/
hydrpt2018/maps/UpropwelC5_grad.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
NOTES: MW-4, MW-26, TW4-1, TW4-2, TW4-4, TW4-11, TW4-19, TW4-20, TW4-21, TW4-37, TW4-39 and TW4-41 are chloroform pumping wells;
TW4-22, TW4-24, TW4-25 and TWN-2 are nitrate pumping wells; TW4-11 water level is below the base of the Burro Canyon Formation
5500
4h quarter 2018 water level
contour and label in feet amsl
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
simulated hydraulic gradient direction
beneath hypothetical 'leak' located at
tail of arrow
estimated perched groundwater flow path
1SJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
(not included)
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42
MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
MODEL GRID MESH FOR SIMULATING
HYPOTHETICAL 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
AND KRIGED 4th QUARTER 2018 WATER LEVELS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/
hydrpt2018/maps/UpropwelC5_mesh.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
5500
4h quarter 2018 water level
contour and label in feet amsl
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
2ASJS 2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
(not included)
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42
MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
MODEL GRID MESH FOR SIMULATING
HYPOTHETICAL 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
AND KRIGED 4th QUARTER 2018 WATER LEVELS
WHITE MESA SITE
H:/718000/
hydrpt2018/maps/UpropwelC5_mesh.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
5500
4h quarter 2018 water level
contour and label in feet amsl
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
2BSJS 2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpm50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
3ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpm100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
3BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpm200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
3CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpm400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
3DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpm50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
4ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpm100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
4BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpm200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
4CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpm400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
4DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpmE50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
5ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpmE100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
5BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpmE200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
5CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/conc1gpmE400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
5DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpmE50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
6ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpmE100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
6BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpmE200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
6CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/concpt1gpmE400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportion of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater
6DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpm50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
7ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpm100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
7BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpm200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
7CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpm400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
7DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpm50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
8ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpm100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
8BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpm200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
8CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-44 AND MW-45
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpm400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
8DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpmE50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
9ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpmE100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
9BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpmE200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
9CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsat1gpmE400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
9DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpmE50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
10ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpmE100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
10BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpmE200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
10CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
SIMULATED INCREASE IN SATURATED THICKNESS (FEET)
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/delsatpt1gpmE400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
5
simulated increase in
saturated thickness (feet)
10DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT HIGH CONDUCTIVITY IN UPPER LAYER
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmhik50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without high conductivity in upper layer0.1
11ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT HIGH CONDUCTIVITY IN UPPER LAYER
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmhik100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without high conductivity in upper layer0.1
11BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT HIGH CONDUCTIVITY IN UPPER LAYER
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmhik200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without high conductivity in upper layer0.1
11CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT HIGH CONDUCTIVITY IN UPPER LAYER
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmhik400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without high conductivity in upper layer0.1
11DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT DRY ZONES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpm50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without dry zones0.1
12ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT DRY ZONES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpm100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without dry zones0.1
12BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT DRY ZONES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpm200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without dry zones0.1
12CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
WITH AND WITHOUT DRY ZONES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpm400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater with and
without dry zones0.1
12DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmlodsp50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
13ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmlodsp100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
13BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmlodsp200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
13CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmlodsp400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
13DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmlodsp50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
14ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmlodsp100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
14BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmlodsp200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
14CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
ASSUMING HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK'
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmlodsp400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
14DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmElodsp50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
15ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmElodsp100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
15BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmElodsp200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
15CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comp1gpmElodsp400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
15DSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 50 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmElodsp50yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
16ASJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 100 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmElodsp100yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
16BSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 200 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmElodsp200yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
16CSJS2/8/19
HYDRO
GEO
CHEM, INC.APPROVED DATE REFERENCE FIGURE
1 mile
CORRAL CANYON
CORRAL SPRINGS
COTTONWOOD
ENTRANCE SPRING
RUIN SPRING
WESTWATER
Cell 1
Cell 2
Cell 3
Cell 4A
Cell 4B
MW-01
MW-02
MW-3A
MW-11
MW-14MW-15
MW-17
MW-18
MW-19
MW-20
MW-21
MW-22
MW-23
MW-24
MW-25
MW-27
MW-28
MW-29
MW-30
MW-31
MW-32
MW-33
MW-34MW-37
MW-38
MW-39
MW-40
TW4-01
TW4-03
TW4-34
TWN-01
TWN-02
TWN-03
TWN-04
TWN-05
TWN-06
TWN-07
TWN-08
TWN-09
TWN-10
TWN-11 TWN-12
TWN-13
TWN-14
TWN-15
TWN-16
TWN-17
TWN-18
TWN-19
PIEZ-01
PIEZ-02
PIEZ-3A
PIEZ-04
PIEZ-05
TW4-05
TW4-12
TW4-13
TW4-31
TW4-32
MW-12
TW4-11TW4-16
TW4-18
TW4-27
MW-26
MW-35
MW-36
TW4-04
TW4-07
TW4-09
TW4-19
TW4-21
TW4-24
TW4-25
TW4-26
TW4-40
TW4-06
TW4-02
TW4-08
MW-04
MW-05
TW4-22
TW4-23
TW4-20
TW4-28
TW4-29 TW4-30
TW4-10
TW4-33
TW4-35
TW4-36
TW4-41TW4-14
TW4-37 TW4-38
TW4-39
DR-05 DR-06 DR-07
DR-08
DR-09
DR-10 DR-11 DR-12 DR-13
DR-14 DR-15
DR-17
DR-19 DR-20 DR-21
DR-22
DR-23
DR-24
proposed 5A
proposed 5BMW-41
MW-42 MW-43 MW-44
MW-45
DR-26
MW-46
MW-47
EXPLANATION
perched monitoring well
perched piezometer
seep or spring
COMPARISON OF PROPORTION OF TAILINGS SOLUTION
WITHIN PERCHED GROUNDWATER AFTER 400 YEARS
USING MODERATE AND LOW DISPERSIVITIES
HYPOTHETICAL 0.1 GPM 'LEAK' BETWEEN MW-45 AND MW-46
H:/718000/hydrpt2018/cell5A_B/
DWMRC/Figures/comppt1gpmElodsp400yr.srf
MW-5
PIEZ-1
RUIN SPRING
temporary perched monitoring well
temporary perched nitrate monitoring
well
TW4-12
TWN-7
estimated dry area
PIEZ-3A May, 2016 replacement of perched
piezometer Piez-03
TW4-40 temporary perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
proposed Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
MW-41
MW-46 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched monitoring well
DR-26 proposed additional Cell 5A/5B
perched piezometer
perched monitoring well
installed February, 2018
MW-38
0.1
simulated proportions of tailings solution
mixed with perched groundwater using
moderate and low dispersivities0.1
16DSJS2/8/19