DRC-2011-007451_1 - 0901a0688027e7f0

APPENDIX D

UPDATED TAILINGS COVER DESIGN REPORT
WHITE MESA MILL
SEPTEMBER 2011

PREPARED BY
MWH AMERICAS
3665 JFK PARKWAY, BLDG 1, SUITE 206
FORT COLLINS, CO 80525

Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
WHITE MESA MILL

Updated Tailings Cover Design
Report

September 2011

3665 JFK Parkway
Suite 206
Fort Collins, CO USA

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
i September 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 
1.1 Scope of Report .................................................................................................... 1 
1.2 Updates from 1996 Cover Design ......................................................................... 1 
1.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 2 
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................... 4 
2.1 Location ................................................................................................................. 4 
2.2 Climate and Vegetation ......................................................................................... 4 
2.2.1 Climate....................................................................................................... 4 
2.2.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 4 
2.3 Geology and Seismicity ......................................................................................... 4 
2.4 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................ 5 
2.5 Reclamation Materials ........................................................................................... 5 
2.5.1 Tailings Characterization ........................................................................... 6 
2.5.2 Cover Borrow Material Characterization .................................................... 6 
2.5.3 Erosion Protection Material Characterization ............................................ 8 
3.0 REGULATORY CRITERIA ............................................................................................. 11 
4.0 COVER DESIGN ............................................................................................................. 13 
4.1 Drainage and Slopes ........................................................................................... 13 
4.2 Cover System ...................................................................................................... 13 
4.3 Freeze/Thaw ....................................................................................................... 14 
4.4 Radon Attenuation ............................................................................................... 14 
4.5 Vegetation and Biointrusion ................................................................................ 14 
4.5.1 Vegetation ............................................................................................... 14 
4.5.2 Biointrusion .............................................................................................. 15 
4.6 Infiltration ............................................................................................................. 15 
4.7 Slope Stability Analysis ....................................................................................... 16 
4.8 Settlement and Liquefaction Analyses ................................................................ 16 
4.8.1 Settlement Analyses ................................................................................ 16 
4.8.2 Liquefaction Analyses .............................................................................. 17 
4.9 Erosion Protection ............................................................................................... 17 
4.10 Tailings Dewatering ............................................................................................. 18 
4.10.1 Tailings Cells 2 and 3 .............................................................................. 18 
4.10.2 Tailings Cells 4-A and 4-B ....................................................................... 19 
4.11 Material Quantities .............................................................................................. 19 
5.0 ADDITIONAL PLANS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS .............................................. 21 
5.1 Settlement Monitoring Plan ................................................................................. 21 
5.2 Revegetation Plan ............................................................................................... 21 
5.3 Final Cover Verification ....................................................................................... 21 
5.4 Closure and Post-Closure Monitoring ................................................................. 22 
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 23 

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
ii September 2011
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1. Summary of Laboratory Test Results and Borrow Stockpile Volumes (October 2010
Field Investigation) 
Table 2-2. NRC Riprap Scoring of Potential Rock Sources 
Table 4-1. Results of Slope Stability Analyses 
Table 4-2. Estimate of Future Settlement in Tailings Cells 
Table 4-3. Reclamation Cover Material Quantity Summary 

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1-1 ET Cover Profile
Figure 2-1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2-2 Borrow Stockpile Locations

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Materials Characterization
Appendix B Freeze/Thaw Analysis
Appendix C Radon Emanation Modeling
Appendix D Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation
Appendix E Slope Stability Analysis
Appendix F Settlement and Liquefaction Analyses
Appendix G Erosional Stability Evaluation
Appendix H Tailings Dewatering
Appendix I Settlement Monitoring Plan
Appendix J Revegetation Plan
Appendix K Durability

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
1 September 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION

This report presents the design of a monolithic evapotranspiration (ET) cover for the tailings
cells at Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s (Denison) White Mesa Uranium Mill (Mill). The Mill is
located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding, in San Juan County, Utah. The millsite
includes a conventional acid leach process mill, associated support facilities, and lined tailings
cells. The tailings cells are located south of the Mill and comprise the following:

 Cell 1 – 55 acres, used for the evaporation of process solutions
 Cell 2 – 65 acres, used for storage of barren tailings sands
 Cell 3 – 70 acres, used for storage of barren tailings sands and evaporation of
process solutions
 Cell 4A – 40 acres, used for storage of barren tailings sands and evaporation of
process solutions
 Cell 4B – 40 acres, currently being used for evaporation of process solutions

1.1 Scope of Report
A previous “Tailings Cover Design” report for the White Mesa Mill was prepared by Titan
Environmental Corporation (Titan, 1996), and presented design criteria for a multi-layered cover
system. This design report was included as Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0
(Denison, 2009b) and previous versions of the Reclamation Plan.

This report supersedes the 1996 cover design in order to provide design criteria for a proposed
monolithic ET cover system for all the tailings cells. This report provides detailed summaries of
the analyses conducted to evaluate the long-term stability of the tailings reclamation cover, and
the results of these analyses, including evaluations of freeze/thaw, radon attenuation,
biointrusion, infiltration, slope stability, settlement, liquefaction, erosional stability, and
dewatering. This report also presents plans for final cover verification, vegetation, and long-
term settlement monitoring. This report replaces the Titan (1996) report as Appendix D in the
Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0 (Denison, 2011).

1.2 Updates from 1996 Cover Design
The cover system presented in Titan (1996) consisted of six feet of random fill and clay,
compacted to 95 percent of maximum dry density. The cover system consisted of the following
materials following materials outlined below by individual layers and thicknesses from top to
bottom:

 3 in (7.6 cm) Erosion Protection Layer (gravel)
 2 ft (61 cm) Radon Attenuation Layer (random fill)
 1 ft (30.5) Radon Attenuation Layer (compacted clay)
 Minimum 3 ft (91.4 cm) Radon Attenuation and Grading Layer (random fill)

This cover design was presented in the Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0 (Denison, 2009b) for
Cells 1, 2, 3, and 4A. Titan (1996) analyzed the proposed cover with respect to radon flux

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
2 September 2011
attenuation, infiltration, effects of free/thaw, erosion protection, and static and pseudostatic
slope stability.

An ET cover was proposed by Denison for the White Mesa Mill disposal cells in the Infiltration
and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM) reports (MWH 2007 and 2010) submitted to the
DRC to fulfill the White Mesa Mill’s Ground Water Discharge Permit No. UGW370004. A
conceptual design of the ET cover was provided in these reports. It was intended that the final
design of the tailings cover would be completed as part of an updated tailings cover design
report.

Denison stated their intent to submit an ET cover design as part of their license renewal in a
meeting with DRC on October 5, 2010 after review of the DRC Reclamation Plan, Version 4.0
Interrogatories – Round 1 (DRC, 2010). The proposed conceptual ET cover design was
provided to DRC on October 7, 2010 and was essentially the same as presented in the 2010
ICTM report (MWH, 2010). The ET cover proposed and evaluated as described in this report is
shown in Figure 1-1 and consists of the following materials outlined below by individual layers
and thicknesses from top to bottom:

 0.5 ft (15 cm) Erosion Protection Layer (gravel-admixture)
 3.5 ft (107 cm) Water Storage/Biointrusion/Frost Protection/Radon Attenuation Layer
(loam to sandy clay)
 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation Layer (highly compacted loam to sandy clay)
 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation and Grading Layer (loam to sandy clay)

The loam to sandy clay soil is the same material referred to in Titan (1996) as random/platform
fill. This material is stockpiled at the site.

This report provides the results of additional laboratory testing and analyses for the monolithic
ET cover design, including radon flux attenuation, infiltration, effects of freeze/thaw, erosion
protection, and static and pseudostatic slope stability; as well as analyses not previously
performed for the Titan (1996) design, including biointrusion, tailings dewatering, liquefaction,
and settlement.

1.3 Limitations
The analyses presented in this report use information from reports prepared by others that have
been provided by Denison Mines (USA) Corp., and our experience with the White Mesa Mill site
and other similar uranium mill sites. The analyses are limited by the information available but
are supplemented by MWH’s experience with the White Mesa Mill and other similar uranium mill
sites. In the event that there are any changes in the nature, design, or characteristics of the
project, or if additional data are obtained, the conclusions and recommendations contained in
the report will need to be re-evaluated by MWH in light of the proposed changes or additional
information obtained.

MWH warrants that services were performed within the limits prescribed by Denison with the
usual thoroughness, and competence of the engineering profession. No other warranty or
representation, either expressed or implied is included or intended in our technical documents.
0.5'
3.5'
9'
2.5'
2.5'
~
/.VEGETATION
~ v ~
EROSION PROTECTION LAYER
(TOPSOIL-GRAVEL ADMIXTURE)
WATER STORAGE I BIOINTRUSION I
FROST PROTECTION I RADON
ATTENUATION LAYER
(LOAM TO SANDY CLAY)
RADON ATTENUATION LAYER
(HIGHLY COMPACTED LOAM TO
SANDY CLAY)
RADON ATTENUATION
AND GRADING LAYER
(LOAM TO SANDY CLAY)
! 1 ~----------~-----------------------,~PR~WEn~-------------------------r------------~ I f OENISOJ)~~ ~ MINES t D . M" (USA) c ET COVER PROFILE DA~UG 2011 I FIGURE 1·1 f'>. emson .nes orp FILE NA"E 1009740WM ETCOVR
~--------~----------------_.--------------------~--~~~~
(D MWH T!Tl(
WHilE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
4 September 2011
2.0 SITE CONDITIONS

2.1 Location
The White Mesa Uranium Mill is located in San Juan County in southeastern Utah,
approximately 6.0 miles south of Blanding, Utah. The site is located on White Mesa, a flat area
bounded on the east by Corral Canyon, to the west by Westwater Creek and to the south by
Cottonwood Canyon. A site location map is shown in Figure 2-1. The Mill is located at an
elevation of 5,600 ft above mean sea level. The Denison facilities consist of a uranium
processing mill and four lined tailings cells located within an approximately 686-acre restricted
area. Total land holdings are approximately 5,415 acres (Denison, 2009b).

2.2 Climate and Vegetation
2.2.1 Climate
The regional climate of the Blanding area is semiarid with an average annual precipitation of
13.3 inches (Denison, 2009b). Most precipitation is in the form of rain, with snowfall accounting
for about one quarter of the annual total precipitation. There are two separate rainfall seasons
in the region, a late summer season when monsoonal moisture from the Gulf of Mexico leads to
thunderstorms, and a second during the winter season related to fronts from the Pacific. The
average annual Class A pan evaporation rate is 68 inches, with the largest evaporation rate
typically occurring in July (Denison, 2009b). Given the annual average precipitation rate of 13.3
inches, the net evaporation rate is 34.3 inches per year (Denison, 2009b).
The mean annual temperature for Blanding, Utah is 52°F, based on the period of 1971-2000.
January is typically the coldest month, with a mean monthly temperature of about 30°F. July is
generally the warmest month, with a mean monthly temperature of 76°F. Daily ranges in
temperatures are typically large.

As an element of the pre-construction baseline study and ongoing monitoring programs, the Mill
operates an onsite meteorological station, which was initiated in early 1977 and continues to
operate presently. A more thorough description of climatic conditions is presented in Denison
(2009b).
2.2.2 Vegetation
As described in Denison (2009b), the natural vegetation near the site is characterized by
pinyon-juniper woodland intergrading with big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) communities.
The understory of this community, which is usually quite open, is composed of grasses, forbs,
and shrubs that are also found in the big sagebrush communities. Based on work completed by
Dames & Moore in the 1978 Environmental Report, no designated or proposed endangered
plant species occur on or near the Mill site (Dames & Moore (1978). A complete discussion of
flora and fauna present in the vicinity of the Mill site is provided in Denison (2009b).
2.3 Geology and Seismicity
The White Mesa Mill is located within the Blanding Basin of the Colorado Plateau physiographic
province. The site is underlain by unconsolidated alluvium overlying sedimentary bedrock
consisting primarily of sandstone and shale. The unconsolidated deposits are primarily eolian
silt and sand and range from 1 to 30 ft thick (these deposits have been removed where the
tailings cells are located). The bedrock underlying the site is relatively undeformed and

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
5 September 2011
horizontal (generally dips are less than 3 degrees). Cretaceous Dakota Sandstone and Burro
Canyon Formation are at or near the surface at the site; these sandstone units have a combined
thickness of 100 to 140 ft at the site. Beneath the Burro Canyon Formation is the Morrison
Formation, which is primarily shale. The Brushy Basin Member is the uppermost member of the
Morrison Formation and is composed primarily of bentonitic mudstones, siltstones, and
claystones. Beneath the Brushy Basin Member are the Westwater Canyon, Recapture, and
Salt Wash members of the Morrison Formation. Beneath the Morrison Formation lies the
Middle to Late Jurassic San Rafael group, and the Late Triassic to Jurassic Glen Canyon
Group. For more detailed descriptions of the geologic setting, see the Reclamation Plan
(Denison 2009b).
The Mill area is located within a relatively tectonically stable portion of the Colorado Plateau,
characterized by a scarcity of recorded seismic events. Most of the larger seismic events in the
Colorado Plateau have occurred along its margins rather than in the interior central region.
Based on the region's seismic history, the probability of a major damaging earthquake occurring
at or near the Mill site is very low. Additional information on the seismotectonics of the Mill site
and vicinity is provided in Denison (2009b).
Several site-specific seismic studies have been performed for the Mill site (UMETCO, 1988;
Tetra Tech, 2006; Tetra Tech, 2010). The most recent study (Tetra Tech, 2010) was performed
to provide additional information for design of tailings Cell 4B. This study concluded that the
maximum horizontal acceleration value for the Mill site is 0.15g. Based on this maximum
horizontal acceleration, a pseudo-static coefficient of 0.10 g was used for seismic stability
analyses of the reclaimed tailings impoundments (described in Appendix E). The Tetra Tech
(2020) seismic study is provided as an attachment to Appendix E, for ease of reference.

2.4 Hydrogeology
Groundwater beneath the site is first encountered as a perched zone within the Burro Canyon
Formation. The low-permeability Brushy Basin Member of the Morrison Formation acts as an
aquitard and forms the base of the perched aquifer. The saturated thickness of the perched
zone ranges from less than 5 ft to as much as 82 ft beneath the site, assuming the base of the
Burro Canyon Formation is the base of the perched aquifer. The water table of the perched
aquifer was 13 to 116 ft below ground surface (bgs) at the facility in 2007 (MWH, 2010), and is
shallowest near the wildlife ponds east of the Mill and tailings cells. Groundwater within the
perched zone generally flows south to southwest beneath the site. Denison (2009b) and MWH
(2010) provide more detailed descriptions of the perched zone hydrogeology.
Aquifers of the Entrada sandstone and Navajo sandstone are located approximately 1,200 ft
below land surface (bls), and are considered one aquifer for purposes of this report. The
Navajo/Entrada Aquifer is capable of yielding significant quantities of water to wells (hundreds of
gallons per minute (gpm)). Water in the Entrada/Navajo Aquifer is artesian, and rises
approximately 800 ft above the base of the overlying Summerville Formation resulting in static
water levels 390 to 500 ft below the ground surface (Denison, 2009b). Denison (2009b)
provides more information regarding the aquifer hydrogeology.
2.5 Reclamation Materials
This section summarizes the characteristics of materials to be used in reclamation of the tailings
disposal cells at the Mill site. Existing characterization data on tailings and potential cover

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
6 September 2011
material are summarized in this section. In addition, durability testing of potential riprap
materials (conducted by Denison) is also summarized in this section.

2.5.1 Tailings Characterization
Geotechnical and radiological data on tailings materials were previously collected and data
applicable to the cover design are included in Appendix A.1. This data was previously
presented in Attachments D and E of the Reclamation Plan, Version 4.0 (Denison, 2009b).
Geotechnical laboratory testing was conducted by Western Colorado Testing, Inc. (1999b) on
the tailings and included specific gravity, standard Proctor, Atterberg limits, and gradation
(including hydrometer). Testing was conducted on four samples of tailings from Cell 2 and two
samples of tailings from Cell 3. Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. (1988) measured
radium-226 activity concentration and the radon emanation coefficient on one tailings sample.
The geotechnical and radiological testing results were used for the radon emanation modeling
and the settlement and liquefaction analysis presented in this report.

2.5.2 Cover Borrow Material Characterization
Geotechnical and radiological data on potential cover materials were previously collected and
data applicable to the cover design are included in Appendix A.1. Some of this data was
previously presented in Attachment D of the Reclamation Plan, Version 4.0 (Denison, 2009b)
and in Titan (1996). Geotechnical laboratory testing of potential cover material (random fill)
from on-site was conducted by Chen and Associates, Inc. (1978, 1979, and 1987), Geosyntec
Consultants (2006), and Western Colorado Testing, Inc. (1999a). Geotechnical testing included
in-situ moisture contents, specific gravity, standard Proctor, modified Proctor, Atterberg limits,
gradation, and permeability. Radon emanation coefficients of random fill samples collected
from on-site stockpiles were measured by Rogers & Associates Engineering Corp. (1988). The
geotechnical and radiological testing results were used for the radon emanation modeling and
the settlement and liquefaction analysis presented in this report.

MWH conducted a field investigation at the Mill site on October 12, 2010 to supplement existing
soils data and further evaluate the geotechnical properties of the potential cover material.
Potential cover borrow material locations are shown on Figure 2-2. MWH visually evaluated all
of the borrow locations and collected representative bulk samples from select locations. The
bulk samples were sent to Advanced Terra Testing in Denver, Colorado for laboratory testing.
Laboratory testing conducted on the collected samples included in-situ water contents,
Atterberg limits, specific gravity, and gradation (including hydrometer). The laboratory testing
results are summarized in Table 2-1 and provided in Appendix A.2. In addition, the volume of
material available at each stockpile was estimated and is summarized in Table 2-1. The results
were used for the cover design analyses presented in this report including radon attenuation,
settlement and liquefaction, and erosional stability.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
7 September 2011
Table 2-1. Summary of Laboratory Test Results and Borrow Stockpile Volumes (October 2010 Field Investigation)
Borrow
Stockpile
ID
Stockpile ID
(Field
Designation)
Estimated
Stockpile
Volume1 (cy)
Material Description Sample
ID
Sample
Depth
(ft)
Gravimetric
Water
Content (%)
Specific
Gravity
Atterberg
Limits2
LL/PL/PI (%)
Particle Size2
Comments % Gravel % Sand % Silt % Clay
E1 -- 15,900 Topsoil not sampled
E2 1 92,000 Silty Sand/Clayey
Sand Random Fill
A 5' 4.5 NP 0.5 77.1 13.5 8.9
B 12' 5.7 2.64 23.3/11.2/12.1 13.1 50.3 22.6 14.0 Sample from working face at south end of stockpile
E3 -- 16,800 Random Fill not sampled
E4 2 66,600 Sandy Clay Random Fill A 5 8.6 30.3/14.4/15.9 0.0 41.2 39.1 19.7
E5 3 68,800 Sandy Clay Random Fill A 6 9.0 33.2/14.3/18.9 0.0 35.5 38.1 26.4
E6 4 100,700 Clay Random Fill A 5 14.4 2.74 40.2/15.8/24.4 0.1 17.7 49.5 32.7
E7 5 74,900 Sandy Clay Random Fill A 6 5.7 26.2/16.3/9.9 0.0 30.2 56.1 13.7
E8 6 227,300 Sandy Clay Random Fill A 2 7.4 23.0/12.0/11.0 0.0 47.0 36.9 16.1
W1 12 85,700 Sandy Clay Random Fill A 5 8.8 32.1/14.5/17.6 0.0 40.6 37.6 21.8
W2 13 584,500 Sandy Clay Random Fill A surface 8.5 28.1/13.1/15.0 0.2 41.5 42.5 15.8
W3 11 84,800 Topsoil (Sandy Silty
Clay) A surface 4.3 20.9/16.2/4.7 0.2 44.2 39.2 16.4
W4 10 90,000 Topsoil (Sandy Silt) A 5 5.3 21.9/18.0/3.9 0.0 32.6 54.3 13.1
W5 -- 965,200 Random Fill not sampled
W6 9 93,400 Topsoil (Sandy Silty
Clay) A surface 3.3 23.1/16.5/6.6 0.0 34.3 51.8 13.9
W7 8 39,500 Sandy Clay Random Fill A 5 8.7 2.67 28.0/10.6/17.3 0.0 43.8 43.1 13.1
W8 -- 900,000 Random Fill not sampled
W9 7 300,000 Sandy Clay Random Fill A surface 4.4 25.9/12.3/13.5 0.0 37.4 45.2 17.4
Notes:
1. Volumes estimated using 2009 topography and assuming a relatively flat bottom surface, except for stockpiles W8 and W9. The volumes for stockpiles W8 and W9 were estimated based on the volume of material excavated from
Cell 4B (1,360,000 cy) less the material used to construct the Cell 4B berm (83,000 cy), in addition to visual observation of the stockpiles.
2. LL = Liquid Limit, PL = Plastic Limit, PI = Plasticity Index (PI = LL-PL)
3. Gravel = 4.75 mm to 75 mm, Sand = 0.075 mm to 4.75 mm, Fines: Silt = 0 .075 mm to 0.002 mm, Clay = less than 0.002 mm

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
8 September 2011

2.5.3 Erosion Protection Material Characterization
Three gravel sources were evaluated as potential sources for material for use as riprap and
erosion protection at the site. Samples were tested from the Cow Canyon pit located 15 miles
south of the mill, the Brown Canyon pit located four miles northeast of the mill, and the North Pit
located one mile northeast of Blanding. Samples from each quarry were tested for durability in
general accordance with guidelines for long-term performance outlined by the US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC). These guidelines are for rock to be used for erosion protection
material on exposed surfaces and utilize a rock scoring value (Johnson, 2002). In order to
develop the scoring criteria the following laboratory tests were performed in accordance with
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1987): specific gravity, absorption, sulfate soundness and L.A.
Abrasion. Results of the durability testing are provided in Appendix K and were previously
presented as Attachment H of the Denison Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0 (Denison, 2009b).
Table 2-2 summarizes the scoring of each potential rock source.

Table 2-2. NRC Riprap Scoring of Potential Rock Sources
Rock Source Score (%) Oversizing Required (%)
Cow Canyon Pit 87.61 None
Brown Canyon 60.98 19.02
North Pit 70.65 9.35

Based on information provided in Johnson (2002), areas defined as critical areas must meet a
score of 65 percent or greater, and areas defined as non-critical areas must meet a score of 50
percent or higher. Critical areas include frequently-saturated areas, all channels, poorly-drained
toes and aprons, control structures and energy dissipation areas. Non-critical areas include
occasionally saturated areas, top slopes, side slopes, and well-drained toes and aprons.
The scores calculated for each rock borrow site indicate that all three rock borrow sites
would provide suitable rock for construction of the erosion protection along the embankment
slopes. The Cow Canyon and North Pit sources would be used for the rock toe apron areas
at the base of the toes of cell outslopes. Oversizing of both the Brown Canyon and North Pit
rock would be required if used for construction. The Brown Canyon source will not be used to
construct the rock toe apron areas at the base of the toes of cell outslopes.
REGIONAL LOCATION MAP FIGURE 2-1
1009740 LOC MAP
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION
AUG 2011Denison Mines (USA) Corp
PROJECT
<O)MWH I)ENISOJ)~~
MINES TITLE
DATE
FILE NAME
CELL1 (EVAPORATION)
PROJECTED APPROXIMATE
/CATCH POINT-(SEE NOTE 1)
OENISOJ)~~
MINES
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
LEGEND
8 .6 EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION
ELEVATION OF TOP OF COVER
[XISTING GROUND CONTOUR
(2007 LIDAR SURVEY)
APPROX LIMITS OF BORROW STOCKPILE
1. THE COVER \\ILL MEET THE GROUND 'MTH A DOWNWARD
SIDE SLOPE OF SH: 1 V.
SCAlE 300~11""""""""1""1iii-~--~0~~3~00iiiiiiiiii~S'DO FT
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION <0»MWH
COVER MATERIAL BORROW LOCATIONS

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
11 September 2011
3.0 REGULATORY CRITERIA

Prior to the State of Utah obtaining agreement state status in 2004, the tailings at the White
Mesa Mill were regulated primarily by the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 40, Appendix A, and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under 10 CFR 61, Subparts A and W which are
administered by the State of Utah’s Division of Air Quality. The State of Utah regulates the site
according to rules and regulations presented in Title R313 – Environmental Quality, Radiation
Control. These rules include, through reference, clarification, or exception, sections of 10 CRF
40 extending through Appendix A, and sections of 10 CFR Part 20. Additionally, the site is
regulated under the Site’s approved Groundwater Discharge Permit (Permit No.UGW370004
revised 20 January 2010) (GWDP), which is administered by the State of Utah’s Department of
Environmental Quality.
NRC and EPA have a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that covers joint expectations
under what was originally Subpart T of 40 CFR 61 (uranium mill tailings closure) and a generic
MOU on elimination of dual regulation. The NRC regulations also incorporate other standards
by reference that were promulgated by the EPA pursuant to the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act (UMTRCA – 1978), and Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as amended. Compliance
with these regulations under the authority of the State of Utah is provided through UAC R313-
24.
The reclamation cover design has been developed in accordance with UAC R313-24, 40 CFR
Part 192, and Part I.D.8 of the GWDP. In addition, the following documents have also provided
design guidance:

 EPA, 1994, The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model, Version 3,
EPA/600/R-94/168b, September
 NRC, 1989, Regulatory Guide 3.64 (Task WM-503-4) Calculation of Radon Flux
Attenuation by Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, March
 NRC, 1984. Radon Attenuation Handbook for Uranium Mill Tailings Cover Design,
NUREG/CR-3533
 NRC, 1990, Final Staff Technical Position, Design of Erosion Protection Covers for
Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites, August
 NUREG/CR-4620, Nelson, J. D., Abt, S. R., et al., 1986, Methodologies for Evaluating
Long-Term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments, June
 Johnson, T.L., 2002. Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stabilization. U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NUREG-1623. September
 U. S. Department of Energy, 1988, Effect of Freezing and Thawing on UMTRA Covers,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, October
 NUREG 1620, 2003, Standard Review Plan for the Review of a Reclamation Plan for
Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of
1978; and
 U.S. Department of Energy, 1989. Technical Approach Document, Revision II, UMTRA-
DOE/AL 050425.0002, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project, Albuquerque,
New Mexico

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
12 September 2011
The key state and federal performance criteria for tailings cover design and reclamation
includes the following:
 Attenuate radon flux to a rate of 20 pCi/m2-s, averaged over each entire cell
 Minimize infiltration into the reclaimed tailings cells
 Maintain a design life of up to 1,000 years and at least 200 years
 Provide long-term isolation of the tailings, including slope stability and geomorphic
durability to withstand erosional forces of wind and runoff (up to the probable maximum
precipitation event) as well as design to accommodate seismic events (up to the peak
from the maximum credible earthquake) ground acceleration
 Designs are to accommodate minimum reliance on active maintenance

Following reclamation of the Mill, a designated area of the site (including the tailings cells) will
be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for long-term care and maintenance and
institutional control. Prior to transfer, the site closure and reclamation is reviewed by the NRC
for compliance with applicable design criteria and guidance (specifically Appendix A of 10 CFR
40). The guidelines of reclamation review of a Title II facility are presented in NUREG-1620
(NRC, 2003).

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
13 September 2011
4.0 COVER DESIGN

4.1 Drainage and Slopes
The slopes and drainage for the new ET cover have been modified from the 2009 Reclamation
Plan (Denison, 2009b) to account for the new ET cover system. The slopes and drainage
provide acceptable erosional stability under long-term conditions. This includes storms up to
the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event. The evaluation of acceptable erosional
stability was conducted according to current NRC guidelines documented in NRC (1990) and
Johnson (2002). Results of analyses conducted for drainage and slopes are presented in
Appendix G of this report. The drainage and slopes are shown in the Drawings (provided in
Attachment A of the Denison 2011 Reclamation Plan).

The drainage on the top surface of the ET cover at Cells 1, 2, and 3 is planned at a 0.5 percent
slope, with portions of Cell 2 top surface at a one percent slope and portions of Cells 4A and 4B
top surfaces at 0.8 percent slope. The slopes of the embankments are the same as those
presented in Denison (2009b), with external side slopes and internal transition slopes graded to
5:1 (horizontal:vertical). The overall site drainage around the reclaimed tailings cells is also the
same as presented in Denison (2009b).

4.2 Cover System
The current cover system proposed for reclamation of the tailings cells is a monolithic ET cover.
This is different from the cover system proposed in Denison (2009b). A monolithic ET cover is
the preferred design to minimize infiltration and meet the radon attenuation standard. The
proposed cover design is sufficient to provide adequate thickness to protect against frost
penetration, to attenuate radon flux, to minimize both plant root and burrowing animal intrusion,
and to provide adequate water storage capacity to minimize the rate of infiltration into the
underlying tailings. Furthermore, the cover is designed to be stable under both static and
anticipated seismic conditions, and to provide tailings isolation under long-term wind and water
erosion conditions.

The ET cover has a minimum thickness of 9 feet, and consists of the following materials listed
below from top to bottom:

 0.5 ft (15 cm) Erosion Protection Layer (gravel-admixture)
 3.5 ft (107 cm) Water Storage/Biointrusion/Frost Protection/Radon Attenuation Layer
(loam to sandy clay)
 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation Layer (highly compacted loam to sandy clay)
 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation and Grading Layer (loam to sandy clay)

The 0.5-foot thick erosion protection layer is planned to be rock mulch consisting of topsoil
mixed with 25 percent gravel. 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 middle layer (2.5 feet) of random fill will be compacted to 95 percent of
standard Proctor. The lower layer of random fill consists 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. In Cell 2 and parts of Cell 3, the lower layer of random fill is
already placed and is approximately 3 feet. The upper 6 inches of this fill will be compacted to

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
14 September 2011
95 percent of standard Proctor compaction and will thus comprise the bottom portion of the
Radon Attenuation Layer.

4.3 Freeze/Thaw
Titan (1996) included a freeze/thaw analysis for the reclamation cover design. These analyses
have been updated to include the soil properties proposed for use in the monolithic ET cover.
The updated calculation of frost penetration at the site was performed with the computer
program ModBerg (CRREL), which uses a built-in weather database, as well as user-defined
soil parameters.

In summary, the freeze/thaw calculations show the total depth of frost penetration in the area of
the Mill site to be 27.1 inches (2.26 ft). This frost depth could potentially be exceeded in a given
year during the long-term design life of the cover, but the characteristics of the cover materials
are such that detrimental effects to the cover because of freezing and thawing are not expected.
Furthermore, because the cover has a total thickness of 9 feet, the impacts of freeze and thaw
will not have significant impacts to the overall integrity of the cover. A complete description of
the freeze/thaw analyses conducted for the proposed cover system is presented in Appendix B.

4.4 Radon Attenuation
Titan (1996) included an analysis of radon attenuation for the reclamation cover design. Radon
attenuation analyses were later conducted by MWH (2010) for the conceptual design of the
proposed monolithic ET cover. The results were presented in Appendix H of the Infiltration and
Contaminant Transport Modeling Report (MWH, 2010). These analyses have been updated for
this report to incorporate the final design of the ET cover, changes to the final grading plan, as
well as additional geotechnical testing of material properties.

The thickness of the ET cover necessary to limit radon emanation from the disposal areas was
analyzed using the NRC RADON model (NRC, 1989). The model was used to calculate the
cover thickness required to achieve the State of Utah’s long-term radon emanation standard for
uranium mill tailings (Utah Administrative Code, Rule 313-24), 20 picocuries per square meter
per second (pCi/m2-s). The analyses were conducted following the guidance presented in NRC
publications NUREG/CR-3533 (NRC, 1984) and Regulatory Guide 3.64 (NRC, 1989).

The input parameters used in the model are based on engineering experience with similar
projects, recent laboratory testing results for samples of random fill (included in Appendix A.2),
and available data from previous work by others. Results of the RADON analyses show that the
proposed cover system reduces the rate of radon-222 emanation to less than 20 pCi/m2-s,
averaged over the entire area of the tailings impoundments. A complete description of the
radon attenuation analyses conducted for the ET cover system is included in Appendix C.

4.5 Vegetation and Biointrusion
4.5.1 Vegetation
The plant species proposed for the cover system consist of native perennial grasses and forbs.
The use of these species in reclamation of the tailing cells should provide a permanent or
sustainable plant cover because of the highly adapted nature of these species to existing site
conditions, their tolerance to environmental stresses such as drought, fire, and herbivory, and
their ability to effectively reproduce over time. These species can coexist and fully utilize plant

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
15 September 2011
resources to keep invasive weeds and deep rooted woody species from colonizing the site.
Once established, the proposed seed mixture should produce a grass-forb community of highly
adapted and productive species that can effectively compete with undesirable species, including
shrubs and trees native to the area.

The proposed ET cover does not contain a biobarrier (e.g. cobble layer) to minimize potential
intrusion by plant roots or burrowing animals. The proposed cover system is designed to
minimize both plant root and burrowing animal intrusion through the use of thick layers of soil
cover in combination with a highly compacted layer placed at a depth that is below the expected
rooting and burrowing depths among species that may inhabit the site. Root growth into the
highly compacted radon attenuation layer that begins at a depth of 122 cm will be restricted
because of the high density of this material (compaction to 95 percent Standard Proctor). In
addition, both root density and the size of roots decrease at a rapid rate with rooting depth,
further decreasing the potential for root growth into the compacted radon attenuation layer of the
cover system. Appendix D provides a complete discussion of cover vegetation.

4.5.2 Biointrusion
Based on a review of the wildlife survey data from the 1978 Environmental Report produced for
the White Mesa site (Dames & Moore, 1978), and a thorough literature review of burrowing
depths and biointrusion studies, the maximum depth of on-site burrowing would be
approximately one meter or slightly over three feet. Wildlife survey data for the site identify
burrowing mammals as deer mice, kangaroo rats, chipmunks, desert cottontails, blacktailed
jackrabbits, and prairie dogs. Other burrowing mammals, such as pocket gophers and badgers
have not been observed in the area of the White Mesa site (Dames & Moore, 1978). Of the list
of burrowing mammals that may occur on the site, the prairie dog is the species capable of
burrowing to the greatest depth. Studies by Shuman and Whicker (1986) and Cline et al. (1982)
conducted in southeast Wyoming, Grand Junction, Colorado and Hanford, Washington,
document maximum burrowing depths of prairie dogs between 60 and 100 cm. Based on this
empirical data and the potential species that may use the site as habitat, any burrowing activity
that may occur would be limited to about one meter below ground surface. In addition, prairie
dog habitat is characterized by low plant cover and vegetation that is short in vertical stature
(Holechek et al. 1998). The potential for prairie dogs colonizing the tailing cells is very low
because plant cover and stature will not match their habitat preferences. A complete discussion
of the evaluation of Biointrusion through the ET cover is presented in Appendix D.

4.6 Infiltration
Titan (1996) included an analysis of infiltration through the reclamation cover system. Infiltration
modeling for the monolithic ET cover was completed by MWH and summarized in the Infiltration
and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report (MWH, 2010). These analyses included the soil
properties for materials proposed for use in the monolithic ET cover. The updated evaluation of
infiltration of precipitation through the cover system was evaluated with the computer program
HYDRUS-1D (Simunek et al., 2009). The modeling used historic values of daily precipitation
and evapotranspiration over a 57-year climate period, as well as assumptions that were either
conservative or based on anticipated conditions. Given the flat nature of the cover (less than 1
percent slope), no runon- or runoff-based processes were assumed to occur. As a result,
precipitation applied to the cover surface was removed through evaporation or transpiration,
retained in the soil profile as storage, or transmitted downward as infiltration.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
16 September 2011
The model-predicted water flux rate varies during the 57-year period from a minimum rate of
0.17 millimeters per year (mm/yr) to a maximum rate of 1.1 mm/yr, with an average long-term
flux rate through the cover system of 0.45 mm/yr. This average long-term water flux rate
corresponds to approximately 0.1 percent of the average annual amount of precipitation
recorded at the Blanding, Utah weather station.

The model-predicted water flux rate through the monolithic ET cover indicates that the available
storage capacity of the cover should be sufficient to significantly reduce infiltration, and the ET
cover should function properly as designed. A complete description of the infiltration analyses
conducted for the monolithic ET cover is provided in MWH (2010).

4.7 Slope Stability Analysis
Titan (1996) included static and pseudo-static stability analyses for the tailings embankments
based on the reclamation cover design. These analyses have been updated to incorporate the
proposed monolithic ET cover system, updated geotechnical properties and seismic information,
and an updated critical cross section. The slope stability analyses were performed for both
static (long-term) and pseudo-static loading conditions, to meet NRC (2003) criteria. The
analyses were performed using limit equilibrium methods with the computer program SLOPE/W
(Geo-Slope, 2007).

A complete description of the input parameters and assumptions used in the analyses are
included in Appendix E. The results of the stability analyses are provided in Table 4-1 below.
The minimum factors of safety required in design and presented in Table 4-1 meet the criteria of
NRC (2003). As shown in Table 4-1, the calculated factors of safety for both the long-term
static condition and the pseudo-static condition exceed the required values.

Table 4-1. Results of Slope Stability Analyses
Loading Condition Required Factor of
Safety
Calculated Factor of
Safety
Static Long-Term 1.5 4.30
Pseudo-static 1.1 2.82

4.8 Settlement and Liquefaction Analyses
4.8.1 Settlement Analyses
Settlement analyses were performed to evaluate the amount of tailings settlement expected to
occur due to placement of the interim cover, dewatering, and subsequent construction of the
final cover. Settlement analyses were not previously conducted for the tailings. Settlement of
the tailings was modeled by applying loads corresponding to these loading conditions. Historic
monitoring data from monitoring points in Cells 2 and 3 were used to estimate settlement
parameters for calculation of future settlement. Material properties used in the analyses were
obtained from laboratory test results or estimated based on historic monitoring data.

Settlement due to dewatering and placement of the interim cover is estimated to be
approximately 2 inches in Cell 2, and approximately 10 inches in Cells 3, 4A and 4B. After
placement of the interim cover, settlement monuments will be installed within Cells 3, 4A, and
4B. Monuments will be monitored on a regular basis in order to verify that most (90 percent) of
the settlement due to dewatering and interim cover placement has occurred prior to construction

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
17 September 2011
of the final cover. The time required to reach 90 percent of total anticipated settlement ranges
from approximately 2.5 to 4 years. Additional settlement due to placement of the final cover is
estimated to be approximately 5 to 6 inches. The results of the analyses are summarized in
Table 4-2. A detailed discussion of the settlement analyses performed for the ET cover is
provided in Appendix F.

Table 4-2. Estimate of Future Settlement in Tailings Cells
Description Cell 2 Cell 3 Cells 4A/4B
Total Settlement due to Interim Cover Placement
and Dewatering 0.14 ft 0.83 ft 0.87 ft
Total Settlement due to Final Cover
Placement 0.42 ft 0.38 ft 0.38 ft
Time to Reach 90% Consolidation 2.6 yrs 3.8 yrs 4.1 yrs
Note: Values presented in table are based on average consolidation parameters (Cc and cv)

4.8.2 Liquefaction Analyses
Liquefaction analyses were performed to evaluate the risk of earthquake-induced liquefaction of
the tailings. The analyses summarized herein are an update to modeling presented in
Attachment E of Denison (2009b). These analyses have been updated to incorporate the
proposed monolithic ET cover system and a more recent reference for liquefaction analyses
(Youd et al., 2001). Material properties used in the analyses were obtained from results of
laboratory tests on tailings samples, or were estimated where site-specific data was not
available. Site-specific seismic hazard information from Tetra Tech (2010) was used in the
analysis and includes a peak ground acceleration of 0.15g for an approximate 10,000 year
return period, with the mean seismic source being a magnitude (Mw) 5.81 event occurring 51.5
km from the site. The Tetra Tech (2020) seismic study is provided as an attachment to
Appendix E (Slope Stability Analyses).

Based on the results of the liquefaction analysis, including assumed geotechnical material
properties and site-specific estimations of ground acceleration, the tailings are not susceptible to
earthquake-induced liquefaction. Computed factors of safety for an approximate 10,000 year
return period range from 1.3 to 1.9. A detailed discussion of the liquefaction analyses
performed is included in Appendix F.

4.9 Erosion Protection
The erosional stability of the reclaimed tailings cells was evaluated in terms of long-term water
erosion under extreme storm conditions. Titan (1996) provided an erosion protection design for
the reclamation cover system described in their 1996 report. An updated evaluation of erosional
stability of the cover surface and reclaimed embankment slopes has been performed to
incorporate the proposed ET cover system, the new final grading design, and the updated
Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event (Denison, 2009a). The updated analyses also
include an evaluation of sheet erosion of the top slope of the cells, a rock apron at the toe of the
embankment slopes, and the need for filter material between riprap and the underlying soil. In
addition, hydraulic and erosional analyses were updated for the drainage channel and
sedimentation basin. The previous analyses were provided in the Denison 2009 Reclamation
Plan. The analyses have been conducted in general accordance with NRC guidelines (NRC,
1990; Johnson, 2002). A detailed description of the analyses performed is presented in

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
18 September 2011
Appendix G. The erosion protection required for reclamation is presented in the Drawings
(provided in Attachment A of Denison’s 2011 Reclamation Plan).

The components of erosion protection for the reclaimed tailings cells consist of the following:

 The cover on the top surface of Cells 1, 2, and 3, with slopes of 0.5 percent, should be
constructed as a vegetated slope, with 6 inches of topsoil vegetated with a grass
mixture.
 The portions of Cell 2 with a top surface of 1 percent slope, and the portions of Cells 4A
and 4B with 0.8 percent slope, should be constructed with 6 inches of topsoil mixed with
25 percent (by weight) gravel (maximum diameter of 1-inch).
 External side slopes or internal transition slopes graded to 5:1 (horizontal: vertical)
should be constructed with 12 inches of angular riprap with a median rock size of 7.4
inches.
 A rock apron is recommended for the south side slopes of the reclaimed surfaces of
Cells 4A and 4B and the east side of Cell 4A. The rock apron should be constructed
with 3.75 feet of angular riprap with a median rock size of 15 inches.
 A rock apron is recommended for the transition areas of the toes of the north and west
side slope and the east side slope of Cells 2 and 3. The rock apron should be
constructed with 2 feet of angular riprap with a median rock size of 7.4 inches.
 A filter is recommended between the soil and rock protection, due to the size of riprap
required for the embankment slopes and the fine-grained nature of the underlying
topsoil.
The components of erosion protection for the drainage channel and sedimentation basin consist
of the following:

 The surface of sedimentation basin, with a slope of 0.1 percent, should be constructed
as a vegetated slope, with 6 inches of topsoil vegetated with a grass mixture.
 The remaining surface of the sedimentation basin will be excavated into bedrock. A rock
apron will be placed at the transition from the vegetated surface to the portion excavated
into bedrock.
 The channel will be excavated into bedrock. The channel has a bottom slope of 0.1
percent, a 150-foot bottom width and 3:1 (H:V) side slopes. The plan view of the
channel is shown in the Drawings.

4.10 Tailings Dewatering
An evaluation of the effects of dewatering in tailings Cells 2, 3, 4A and 4B was conducted to
estimate the time required to dewater the tailings, as well as to calculate the residual saturated
thickness of tailings after dewatering operations cease. Dewatering analyses for Cells 2 and 3
were conducted by MWH and are presented in Appendix J of MWH (2010). Dewatering
analyses for Cells 4A and 4B were conducted by Geosyntec (2007a, 2007b). The pertinent
excerpts from MWH (2010), Geosyntec (2007a, 2007b), and DRC (2008) are included in
Appendix H.

4.10.1 Tailings Cells 2 and 3

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
19 September 2011
Dewatering of Cells 2 and 3 will be performed via the drain network consisting of perforated
PVC pipe located across the base of the cells. The pipes drain to an extraction sump on the
southern side of each cell. Tailings water gravity drains to the sump and is then pumped to Cell
1 for evaporation. The design for the drains is the same for both cells, and each drain system
covers an approximate area of 400-feet by 600-feet in each cell. The drain pipes are covered by
an envelope of sand over the drains, in contrast to a continuous layer of sand across the bottom
of the tailing cells.

The analyses of dewatering of Cells 2 and 3 were performed with the computer code
MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988; Harbaugh et al., 2000) with the Department of
Defense Groundwater Modeling System (GMS) pre- and post-processor. The slimes drains
were simulated with the Drain package in MODFLOW, and values of hydraulic conductivity were
based on measured values reported for uranium mill tailings at a similar facility (MWH, 2010).

The MODFLOW dewatering model completed for Cells 2 and 3 predicted that the tailings would
draindown nonlinearly through time reaching an average saturated thickness of 3.5 feet (1.07
m) after 10 years of dewatering (MWH, 2010). The model also predicted that dewatering rates
would decline to approximately 2 gallons per minute (gpm) after 10 years of pumping. A
complete description of the dewatering modeling conducted for tailings Cells 2 and 3 is provided
in Appendix J of MWH (2010), and is attached herein as Appendix H.1.

4.10.2 Tailings Cells 4-A and 4-B
The drain network design in Cells 4A and 4B is the same for each cell, and is different from that
constructed in Cells 2 and 3. The drain network in Cells 4A and 4B consists of a series of 12-
inch wide HDPE strip drains wrapped in geotextile, and covered by sand bags. The drain
spacing is 50 feet across the entirety of both cells. The HDPE drains are connected to a
perforated 4-inch diameter PVC pipe bedded in drain aggregate and wrapped in geotextile. The
PVC pipe gravity drains the tailings water to the sump for extraction.

A tailings cell dewatering model was not constructed for Cells 4A and 4B because analytical
solutions presented by Geosyntec Consultants (2007a, 2007b) were deemed adequate given
the uniform distribution of the drain system in those cells. Material properties for tailings in Cells
4A and 4B were estimated based on results of laboratory tests. Results of the analyses
indicated the areas of Cells 4A and 4B with the maximum thickness of tailings will be drained
within approximately 5.5 years (Geosyntec Consultants, 2007a; 2007b). Cells 4A and 4B are
estimated to be dewatered significantly faster than Cells 2 and 3 due to the more extensive
drain network.

4.11 Material Quantities
The volume of materials required for construction of the interim cover, final cover, and erosion
protection are provided in Table 4-3. The quantities of materials available for construction of the
cover are also provided in Table 4-3. A summary of the volumes of borrow stockpiles was
provided in Section 2.5. Sufficient quantities are available from on-site sources for the topsoil
and random fill materials. The bedding and gravel materials would be obtained from off-site
commercial sources. Three commercial sources have been identified as potential sources for
the bedding and gravel materials. The potential off-site sources were listed in Section 2.5.
Sufficient quantities of material are available from the off-site sources identified.

Table 4-3. Reclamation Cover Material Quantity Summary

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
20 September 2011
Material
Quantity Required
for Reclamation
(cy)
Quantity Available (Identified
Sources) (cy)
Topsoil (for Erosion Protection Layer) 226,000 284,100 (on-site stockpiles)
Gravel (1-inch minus for Erosion
Protection Layer) 25,000 Sufficient quantity available (off-
site commercial source)
Random Fill (total for water storage and
radon attenuation cover layers) 3,398,000 3,522,000 (on-site stockpiles)
Riprap (D50 = 7.4 and 15 inch for side
slopes and rock aprons) 54,000 Sufficient quantity available (off-
site commercial source)
Riprap Bedding/Filter Layer 21,0001 Sufficient quantity available (off-
site commercial source)
Note:
1. Based on 6-inch thick medium sand bedding/filter layer beneath riprap.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
21 September 2011
5.0 ADDITIONAL PLANS AND MONITORING PROGRAMS

5.1 Settlement Monitoring Plan
There are two objectives for monitoring settlement associated with the tailings cells: (1)
assurance that the materials in the tailings cells have stabilized prior to construction of the final
cover system, and (2) after final cover construction, verification that the final cover surface is not
experiencing significant settlement. Monitoring of tailings surface settlement will be conducted
at the end of operations to measure rates and locations of settlement prior to construction of the
cover system. After construction of the cover system, settlement monitoring will be conducted
as part of post-closure performance monitoring. A detailed settlement monitoring plan will be
prepared to outline the procedures and measurement frequency for monitoring and will be
submitted for agency review at least one year prior to decommissioning of Cells 2, 3, 4A and
4B. A preliminary settlement monitoring plan is presented in Appendix I.

5.2 Revegetation Plan
Revegetation of the tailing cells at the Mill site will be completed following construction of the
cover system. The revegetation process will establish a grass-forb community consisting
primarily of native, perennial grasses and forbs that are highly adapted to the climatic and
edaphic conditions of the site. Revegetation methods will follow state-of-the-art techniques for
soil amendments, seedbed preparation, seeding and mulching. In addition, quality assurance
and quality control procedures will be followed to ensure that revegetation methods are
implemented correctly and the results of the process meet expectations. A revegetation plan
presenting seedbed preparation, soil amendments, species types, seeding rates, and quality
assurance is presented in Appendix J.

5.3 Final Cover Verification
Following construction of the final tailings reclamation cover, but prior to placement of erosion
protection, testing will be performed to verify that the cover meets the requirements of long-term
radon-222 emanation (less than 20 pCi/m2-s averaged over the entire area of the tailings cells).
The components of the verification program are summarized below.

Following final design of the reclamation cover, Denison will submit an Emissions Measurement
Plan to the DRC for review. The Emissions Measurement Plan will provide a map showing the
extent of the tailings disposal cells and reclamation cover, as well as the measurement locations
for the radon emissions testing. This Emissions Measurement Plan will be developed in general
accordance with procedures outlined in 40 CFR Part 61, Appendix B, Method 115.

Following construction of the final tailings reclamation cover, but prior to placement of erosion
protection, verification testing will be performed to measure radon-222 emanation. Verification
testing will be performed in accordance with procedures described in 40 CFR Part 61, Appendix
B, Method 115, or another method of verification approved by the Executive Secretary as being
at least as effective in demonstrating the effectiveness of the final radon barrier. The schedule
for construction of the final cover is unknown at this time, and may either be performed in a
phased manner, or may be performed as continuous placement of the cover over all of the
tailings cells. If the final cover is constructed in phases, verification testing will be performed for
each portion of the reclaimed tailings after each phase of construction. However, if construction
of the final cover is performed as a continuous placement of the cover over all of the tailings
cells, verification testing will be conducted for the entire reclaimed tailings area at once. In

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
22 September 2011
either scenario, verification testing will be performed as soon as reasonably achievable after
placement of the final cover. Results of the verification testing will be reported within ninety
days of the completion of all testing and analysis relevant to the verification.

Measurement, calculation of radon flux, and reporting will all be performed in accordance with
procedures described in 40 CFR Part 61, Appendix B, Method 115. The documentation will
include the results of all measurements, the calculations and/or analytical methods used to
derive radon flux, and the procedure used to determine compliance. These records will be
maintained on site or at an off-site storage facility until the time of site transfer to the DOE.

5.4 Closure and Post-Closure Monitoring
The performance monitoring and verification tasks for the reclaimed tailings cells are consistent
with plans for overall site reclamation and review guidelines in NRC (2003). Key tasks outlined
below will be performed from the time of site reclamation until property transfer to the DOE.

 Settlement. Settlement will be monitored with survey monuments, as discussed in
Section 5.1 and Appendix I.
 Vegetative Cover. The Revegetation Plan discussed in Section 5.2 and Appendix J will
be followed. The vegetation performance will be monitored on a semi-annual basis for
comparison with goals outlined in the Revegetation Plan. The vegetation performance
will be monitored by Denison until that responsibility is changed with property transfer to
the U.S. Department of Energy.
 Erosional Stability. The erosional stability of the cover surface will be monitored on a
semi-annual basis, most likely at the same time as the vegetation monitoring. Elements
of the erosional stability monitoring are degree of vegetation cover (in terms of surface
coverage), identification of settled or ponded areas (such as on the top surface), and
identification of rills, gullies, or other areas of runoff concentration. Areas that are
identified will be monitored to determine if corrective action is necessary. Corrective
action would include fill placement with topsoil or placement of erosion-resistant
materials on the surface, such as rock mulch. The erosional stability of the cover
surface will be monitored by Denison until that responsibility is changed with property
transfer to the DOE.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
23 September 2011
6.0 REFERENCES
Chen and Associates, Inc., 1978. Soil Property Study, Earth Lined Tailings Retention Cells,
White Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding, Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels
Nuclear, Inc., July 18.
Chen and Associates, Inc., 1979. Soil Property Study, Proposed Tailings Retention Cells, White
Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding, Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
on January 23.
Chen and Associates, Inc., 1987. Physical Soil Data, White Mesa Project, Blanding Utah,
Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
Cline, J. F., F. G. Burton, d. A. Cataldo, W. E. Shiens, and K. A. Gano. 1982. Long-term
biobarriers to plant and animal intrusions of uranium mill tailings. Rep. PNL-4340. Pacific
Northwest Lab. Richland, WA.
Dames & Moore, 1978. Environmental Report, White Mesa Uranium Project, San Juan County,
Utah, January 20, 1978, revised May 15, 1978.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison), 2009a. “Re: Cell 4B Lining System Design Report,
Response to DRC Request for Additional Information – Round 3 Interrogatory, Cell 4B
Design – Exhibit C: Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Event Calculation”, Letter to
Dane Finerfrock, September 11.
Denison Mines USA Corp. (Denison), 2009b. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding
Utah, Revision 4.0, November.
Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison). 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding
Utah, Revision 5.0, September.
GEO-SLOPE International Ltd (Geo-Slope), 2007. Slope/W, Version 7.17, Calgary, Alberta.
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2006. Stockpile Evaluation, Tailings Cell 4A, White Mesa
Mill, Blanding, Utah. Letter prepared by Chad Bird and Gregory Corcoran for H. Roberts of
International Uranium (USA) Corporation, January 23.
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2007a. Analysis of Slimes Drain (Cell 4A). May 11.
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2007b. Analysis of Slimes Drain (Cell 4B). August 30.
Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-2000, the U.S.
Geological Survey modular ground-water model -- User guide to modularization
concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File
Report 00-92, 121 p.
Holechek, Jerry L., Rex D. Pieper, and Carlton H. Herbel. 1998. Range Management
Principles and Practices. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
24 September 2011
Johnson, T.L., 2002. "Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stabilization." U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), NUREG-1623. September.

McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988, A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference
Ground-Water Flow Model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water-Resources
Investigations, book 6, chap. A1, 586 p.
MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH), 2007. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Infiltration and Contaminant
Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site, Blanding, Utah. Report prepared for
Denison Mines. November.
MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH), 2010. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Revised Infiltration and
Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site, Blanding, Utah. Report
prepared for Denison Mines. March.
Nelson, J.D. , S.R. Abt, R.L. Volpe, D. Van Zye, N.E. Hinkle, and W.P. Staub, 1986.
Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings
Impoundments, NUREG/CR-4620. June.
Rogers & Associates Engineering Corporation, 1988. Two separate letters prepared by Renee
Y. Bowser for C.O. Sealy of Umetco Minerals Corporation, March 4 and May 9.
Shuman, R. and F. W. Whicker. 1986. Intrusion of reclaimed uranium mill tailings by prairie
dogs and ground squirrels. J. Environmental Quality 15:21-24.
Simunek, J., M. Sejna, H. Saito, M. Sakai, and M. Th. van Genuchten, 2009. The HYDRUS-1D
Software Package for Simulating the Movement of Water, Heat, and Multiple Solutes in
Variably Saturated Media, Version 4.08, HYDRUS Software Series 3, Department of
Environmental Sciences, University of California – Riverside, Riverside, CA. pp. 240.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (formerly MFG, Inc.) (Tetra Tech), 2006. White Mesa Uranium Facility Cell 4
Seismic Study, Blanding Utah. November 27.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech). 2010. Technical Memorandum: White Mesa Uranium Facility,
Seismic Study Update for a Proposed Cell, Blanding, Utah. February 3.
Titan Environmental Corporation (Titan), 1996. Tailings Cover Design, White Mesa Mill,
October 1996
UMETCO. 1988. Cell 4 Design, Appendix A, White Mesa Project.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 1987. Design of Small Dams, Third Edition, U.S.
Department of Interior.
U. S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1988. Effect of Freezing and Thawing on UMTRA Covers,
Albuquerque, New Mexico, October.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1989. UMTRA-DOE Technical Approach Document,
Revision II, UMTRA-DOE/AL 050425.0002. December.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
25 September 2011
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1994. The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill
Performance (HELP) Model, Version 3, EPA/600/R-94/168b, September.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1984. Radon Attenuation Handbook for Uranium
Mill Tailings Cover Design, NUREG/CR-3533
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by
Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, Regulatory Guide 3.64.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1990. "Final Staff Technical Position, Design of
Erosion Protective Covers for Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites," August.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2003. Standard Review Plan for the Review of a
Reclamation Plan for Mill Tailings Sites under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act of 1978. NUREG-1620, Revision 1, June.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC). 2008.
Email correspondence between David Rupp and Greg Corcoran regarding items noted
during drain construction inspection, Cell 4A. June 25 – July 2.
Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control (DRC), 2010. Denison
Mines (USA) Corporation Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, November 2009;
Interrogatories – Round 1. September.
Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999a. Soil Sample Testing Results for On-Site Random Fill
and Clay Stockpiles, prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. May.
Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999b. Report of Soil Sample Testing of Tailings Collected
from Cell 2 and Cell 3, Prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation, May 4.
Youd, T., Idriss, I., Andrus, R., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J., Dobry, R., Liam Finn, W.,
Harder, L., Hynes, M., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson, W., Martin, G.,
Mitchell, J., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M., Robertson, P., Seed, R., Stokoe, K., 2001.
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF Workshops of Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX A

MATERIALS CHARACTERIZATION

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1
HISTORICAL LABORATORY TESTING

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1.1
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1978
,: chen and associates, inc.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
W{l L 100tCI.TlOf!4 M S. ZUNI DENVER, COLORADO 102:ZJ
[ H c; I HE (II N' 1~4 EAST ARST STREET • CASPER, WYOMING 1~1 • )()7/2J..(...212i
Job No. 16,406
SECTION 2
Ext racted Data From
SOIL PROPERTY STUDY
EARTH LIHEO TAILINGS RETENTION CELLS
WHITE MESA URANIUM PROJECT
BLANDING, UTAH
Prepa red for:
ENERGY FUELS NUCLEA~. INC.
PARK CENTRAL
1515 AR APAHOE STREET
OEHVER, COLOR ADO 80202
July 18, 1978
TAl!lE I
SUKKAAY OF lABO~ATO~Y TEST A£SUlTS
P•9•
CRAOATION AKALYSIS HtiOlCED HAM£ All ll rt
$poe f e So II x.a~ ,., ..... L•u u ... n Mo!Hvro I Gr.v t Typo Silo . .. . .
#16 ss
I 6 #16 u
)) 8 )/4 In, S6
25 II !6 77
I I 8 114 70
3/4 I 62
NP 1116 Sl
!0 1J ·~cr lay
26 6 #16 6S
n lS as S9 I !!S,O I Ill, .6. 2
I) 118 84
#4 89
8 3/ll In, 65 I 27 I 10),4 I 0 2 1,
4 #S S!!
2l 6 #16 70 109.9 lZ .4 o. l •yey
26 !0 #4 . n
48 24 #30 87 IJuthtred
ayHon• 30 1/JO 96 Aystone
9 ~~ 57 c 4'f
20 9 VeHh• rod
I HOt\C 10 )Ill ln. 72 s c l•y ..
2 #16 59 S I It
:1) 6 #30 7l
s k1l 72
I I
IO.S
14 3/ll In, 69 102.4
9 #B 64 27 I 0<5 4
TML£ I
SU~Y or LASOA~TOAY TEST AESULTS
~·9• <
C~AOATIOH JHALYSIS IUI-IOl0£0
c So 1\..u<lillU'!I Ltil th.on lbiHIIrl •• I Typ~ S Ito Coo toll! t,
)/8 In, 60 l•y
26 I 10 )/8 In, 73 l
22 S6
24 3/8 In, es I 15.8 L
I II l )/8 ln. 79
u 6 Hl6 76
9 I )/II ln. 6)
25 I !I #16 7! I I 2 ). l•y
21.1 5 ItS 55
9 ~~~ . 64
14 IIJO 71 •y
28 l 13 !fll 71 •r
)5 I 114 7$ ty
l, Nl& 75
NP n, )4
)0 I 14 116 68
Nl' 1116 44 II San~ I 13 NS 67 C ay
4 I i In, 46 CalcHeout
t. S It 8 #!6 59 C ay
2S #4 7S IJuthored
I 22 #16
l•yHone
!13 aystono
TABLE II
LABORATORY PERHEABILITY TEST
11 L6 16. li
Sl tv Cl.'!y l . I 22.0 10 I
aystone .o 18.3 9'1
Clay l 03.11 18.0 97
s 11 t I .9 12.4 911
s ll t I 1 to.s ll.S 93
102.4 17.9
106.4 16.4 97
1 Oq. 1 15.8
105.2 13.9 95
SurctH~ ga
Pressure
(psf
500
5
s
Perm¢ lllty
. Sx l
. 6' I
. 2 ' X I (
5 3.
. • X I (
.
• 17 l. l
2' 3 l
. 3 . 1
1 6E-08
2 3E~08
# ''-i
Ill
R OF G LIHITS
PERCENT ATTERBERG LIHI
PASSIHG Ll quId Plastic Shrinkage s I E
• 200 LimIt LimIt LimIt
SIEVE
I 17
y Cl I 33 25 I .62
C!av I 65 18 17. 5 I,
l I 23 17 18 ! •
one I 91 41 21 I 2 '
69 29 15 I 14 .

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1.2
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1979
chen and a.ssocio.tes, inc.
CONSULT ING E N G INE E RS
SOil L fOVHOATIOH 9-6 S. ZUNI DENVER, COLOP.ADO 8022J
[lo!GINEEtiHG
SECTION 3
Extracted Data From
SOIL PROP:::?.7X SJ:UDY
PROPJSED TAILTI~GS RE?ENTIQ~ CELLS
hliiTE HESA !..BA1-:IL1·i PROJECT'
BLANDING, UI'P.B
Prepared for:
~EFGt FUELS NUCLEAR, INC.
1515 ARAPP.-'-10£ SI'REET
D--:r-iVER, CDLO~ 80202
JOJ/7.U-7105
Jo~ r~. l 7 , 130 January 23 , 1979
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES
TABLE I ,
ARY OF ORATORY T R
~"~~--(.----1----I 1---~---~-----
! I i "'
18
16
10
21 Ll
I I 1-
CliEN AND ASSOCIATES
TABLE I
M MARY OF LA RATORY R
12
33
22 I 6
'
3
-----I I I
20 ---10 ·-
22 6 -
E
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES
TABLE I
ARY OF LABORATORY TES R U I
---~--~---
• J
----1-----1------1------1------· ·-
1 r
p Ill f\
action
Dry Holsture % of ty cat on DensIty Content 1\STH . Sc (p ) -
cl 100.2 j 9 ,lt
I
113.8 11.7 5 . . Pfn2
• 9 • 7 97
clav r.;,7 .3 5
stone
; fn2Q .n 18.5 "'(\-7
17.5 9.7 I 3 '
s 1 t l l 2 ,II 12,9 1!1"
2 · PI
• 2 ll~. 7 500 . . )!1~7
.8 15.5 5 . . o-... u
s l 110.9 12.6 5 . .. 7
92 ,ll 23.9
I"'
"" 93. I 22, 1 5 . 1 -
r used ring percolation test Interval,
4 6
s
8 10 14 6
TENSION, BAR
SUMMARY Qf CApiLLARY MOIS UR
RELATJONSHIP TEST RESULTS
WHITE MESA CT
F 3. 1
TENSION,
SUfv1MAf1Y Of CAf'IJ_LARY MOISTUR
RELATIONSHIP TEST R ULTS
WHITE MESA PROJECT
FIGURE 3.5-~
I ...... 0'
I

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1.3
CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1987
Atterberg
lings 28 6
Random 11 7
1
Specific
Gravity
2.85
2.67
es 1 i
% Passing
No. 200
46
48
(
Maximum
Dry Density
104.0
120.2
)
Optimum
Moisture
18.1
11.8

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1.4
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
2006
-.-..
GEoSYNTEc CoNsuLTANTs
Mr: Harold R. Roberts
Vice.·President,Corporate Development
International Uranium.(USA) Corporation
Indepen.dence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 Sev.enteen Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
Subject:· Stockpile Evaluation
Tailings Cell4A, White Mesa Mill
Blanding, Utah
Dear Mr. Roberts:
. . .
11305 Rancho Bert1ard~ Rd., Suite lOl
San Diego, CA92l27 USA
Tel [phone] Fax (858) 674,6586
23 January 2006
GeoSyntec Consultants (GeoSyntec )is. pleased to provide this letter report to
International. Uranium (USA)· .. Corporation. (IUC) presenting the results of the
GeoSyntec .soil stockpile evaluation at the White Mesa Mill facility (site) in Blanding,
Utah, This stockpile evaluation was performedin accordance with an .authorized
proposal.dated5 October 2005.
INTRODUCTION
. . . The site is located at6425S. Highway 191, approximately 6 miles south of
the City ofBlanding, SanJuan County, Utah (Figure 1 ). The 5,415-acre siteis bordered
on all sides by undeveloped land that is sparsely vegetated. The mill is utilized to
process ores alld alternate feed streams for the extraction and enrichment of Uranium
and other approved materials.
BACKGROUND
In addition to marketable. product produced· during· the. milling. process,· ore
spoils (tailings) and highly acidic wastewaters are also generated as process by~
products. The tailings and wastewater are stored on site within constructed surface cells
that are lined with lowcpermeability soil (clay) .and geosynthetic. materials to mitigate
potential impacts to underlyi~g soils and ·groundwater. . Cell 4A. was ·a previously
constructed surface impound at the south end of the site (Figure 2) and. contained a
compacted clay liner and a geosynthetic liner.
SC0349/SC0349-Stockpi/eSamp.LtrRp/.060 116
Mr. Harold R. Roberts
23 January 2006
Page2
pURPOSE
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
A new geosynthetic lining system may be installed in future cell base liner
systems. In addition to the potential need for clay material for the construction of future
base liner. systems, clay material will be needed for final cover system installation
overlying closed cells .. Although many soil stockpiles exist on site, the material in
many of these stockpiles would not meet specific permeability requirements and are not
considered available for use.
Based on discussions between IUC and GeoSyntec during a 29 September
2005 meeting at the site, it was understood that clay soil may be available in two on-site
stockpiles. Clay liner materials are typically required to have an in-situ hydraulic
conductivity of lxl0·7 em/sec or less. In order to. prepare design drawings,
appropriately budget and plan for the future liner system construction, ·and .evaluate
final cover system soil materials, the two existing soil stockpiles with potentially-
suitable clay soil were characterized to evaluate. quality and consistency of the materiaL
In addition, a third on-site stockpile was sampled and evaluated at the request of IUC.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
As part of this· investigation, soil from thre~e existing on site soil stockpiles
was sampled. Before field work began, GeoSyntec reviewed and discussed
documentation for previous sampling events performed by others on many of the soil
stocl<piles on site .. _Inagreementwith IUC,_stockpiles C1,C2, and RF5 were identified
as potential stockpiles of clay material and were the. focus of the GeoSyntec field
evaluation and sampling event (Figure 2). Prior to mobilizing to site, GeoSyntec field
persoruie!prepared a project-specific health and safety plan (HASP) for the field work
to be performed.
The field investigation was performed for the three stockpiles on 10 and 11
November 2005, Soil stockpile evaluation was assisted by an IUCemployee operating
a Caterpillar 426B backhoe on 10 November 2005 and aCaterpillar front-end loader on
11 November 2005, Stockpile evaluation included the visual evaluation of stockpile
surface and excavated test-pits and the collection and transport of soil samples for off-
site laboratory geotechnical testing; General observations made during the. stockpile
evaluation by GeoSyntec field personnel, including surficial conditions. of the three
stockpiles, were recorded on Daily Field Reports.(Appendix A).
On 10. November 2005 nine test-pits were excavated in soil stockpile C1,
and seven test pitswere .excavated in soil stockpile C2. One test pit in stockpile C2 and
two test pits in stockpile RF5 were excavated on 11 November 2005. The approximate
test pit locations are shown on Figures 3 through 5. Test pits were excavated to depths
ranging from approximately 2 to 10 feet below ground surface (bgs) and from
approximately. 10 to 15 feet. long. Test pits excavated with. the backhoe were
SC0349/SCIJ349-StockpileSamp.LtrRpt.IJ61Jl 16
Mr. Harold R. Roberts
23 January 2006
Page3
GEOSYNTEC ·CoNSULTANTS
approximately 2 feet wide and those excavated with the loader were. approximately 6
feet wide. GeneraL visual observations were made of the materials. excavated for each
test pit and the soils were logged in general accordance with the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) soil classification system, as outlined in ASTM standard
02488. Logs of the test pits are presented in Appendix A.
Representative soilsamples were obtained from the soil cuttingsin5cgallon
buckets and shipped, via courier, to .the off-site geotechnical laboratory for further
testing and classification.
LABORATORY TESTING
Geotechnical·laboratory testing was. performed on selected soil samples to
evaluate the suitability of the soil within the stockpiles for use as clay liner. Laboratory
testing was performed by a GeoSyntec subcontractor, Excel Geotechnical Testing. The
following laboratory tests were performed in general accordance with ASTM test
methods on selected soil samples or on a composite of two or more like samples, as
selected by the GeoSyntecprojectmanager:
• Grain size analyses (ASTMD422)
• AtterbergLimits(ASTM 04318)
• Laboratory Compaction by Modified Effort(ASTM 01557)
• Permeability (ASTMD5084)
The laboratory test results are presented in Appendix B and summarized in
Table 1.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on observations made during the .field investigation and review of the
results of the laboratory testing performed for this evaluation, the soil within each of the
three on-site stockpiles. (Cl, C2, and RF5) is suitable for construction of the clay liner
or soil cover. The soil encountered within the test pits performed for the three
stockpiles was generally consistent (e.g. the. soils encountered in the test pits performed
in stockpile Cl were generally consistentthroughout stockpile Cl). The samples tested
from all three stockpiles, although different, are generally suitable for use as clay liner.
Based on. the results of ··laboratory . testing, the on-site . stockpile soils,
cOmpacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent using modified effort and a
moisture content of. at least 4 percent above optimum, should have a hydraulic
conductivity ofless than lxl o·7 cm/s when subjected to a consolidation pressure of 30
pounds per square inch (consistent with anticipated bottom liner system normal
stresses).
SC0349/SC0349-StockpileSamp.LtrRpUJ60/16
Mr. Harold R. Roberts
23 January 2006
Page4
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
GeoSyntec recommends that the soil to be used from the three sampled
stockpiles {Cl, C2, and RF5) as clay liner be compacted to a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the maximum laboratory dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM D 1557 '-Laboratory Compaction using Modified Effort. Soil
compacted for the clay liner should be compacted at least 4 percent wet of the optimum
moisture content as determined in accordance withASTM D1557.
Should you have questions or require additional information regarding this
letter report, please contact us at [phone].
Attachments:
Sincerely,
Chad Bird, E.I.T. 020454
Enviro ental Engineer
~--
re oryT. Corcoran, R.C£. 6020077-2202
ociate
Table 1-SurnmaryofLaboratoryTesting
Figure 1 -Site Location Map
Figure 2 ..,. Site Plan
Figure 3-Location of Stockpile Samples(Cl)
Figure 4-Location of Stockpile Samples (C2)
Figure 5-Location of Stockpile Samples (RF5)
Appendix A-Field Investigation
Appendix B-Laboratory Testing
SC0349/SC0349-StOckpileSamp.LtrRpt.0601/6
Table 1
Summary of Laboratory Testing
Stockpile Evaluation -Tailings Cell4A
GeoSyntec Consultants
Permeability! Lab. Compaction Atterberg Limits Gradation Analyses
Sample ID I Stockpile
C1S1-C
C1S1-E
C1S1-G I C1
Mix 11
Mix 12
C2S1-C
C2Sl-F
C2S1-G
Mix 21
Mix22
RF5-S1-A
RF5-S1-B
Mix 31
Mix32
Notes:
C2
RF5
0 ·~ -·~ .,
" ",.-. E]
" "' ~'-'
4.7E-07
2.1E-08
5.7E-07
3.2E-08
4.6E-08
3.3E-08
..... £
>..;::;-
... "' ~ g. . '-' ~ . " ..... ~~
125.4
128.7
126.8
,.-.
..., "$. ,..,....., = ........ e .s iil w...-~ ~ ..... ·-= g. Q Q o~u
10.4
9.5
11.2
.<::: Ei ·~ ...l .,
-~
:::3
34
33
31
32
32
35
53
40
Mix 1-a mixture of equal volumes ofClSl-C, ClSl-E, and C1Sl-G
Mix 2-a mixture of equal volumes ofC2Sl-C, C2Sl-F, and C2Sl-G
Mix 3-a mixture of equal volumes ofRF5-S1-A and RFS-Sl-B
..... ·a
·~ ...l
"' ·~ i =::
15
15
14
15
14
17
16
14
i ....
0 ·~ "' ·~ ..... .,
" =::
19
18
17
17
18
18
37
26
=u> = ·~ ., .,
" " ~ ~ ..... -~ =en "o i::o ""' ~'ll:
67.6
75.9
66.2
47.3
60.2
50.7
81.2
73.9
= Q ~ () = ·~ ~ 0
CL
CL
CL
sc
CL
CL
CH
CL
1 -Sample compacted to approximately 90 percent relative compaction at a moisture content 2% above optimum
2 -Sample compacted to approximately 90 percent relative compaction at a moisture content 5% above optimum
Page I of I
P:\PRJ\SDWP\Current Projects\SC0349 IUC White Mesa Mill\Site Soil Sampling Report\soil results
= Q :;:
.9:-... "' ~ ~
Sandy lean clay
Lean clay with sand
Sandy lean clay
Clayey fine sand
Sandy lean clay
Sandy lean clay
Fat clay with sand
Lean clay with sand
1/23/2006
SOURCE:
TerroServer-USA;
USCS 7.5 MINUTE
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
1 JULY 1982
___--t--White Mesa Mill
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
SITE LOCATION
WHITE MESA MILL
3,000 1,500 0 3,000 6,000
0 <0 0 <0
~ 0 0 I 0
5 N
1-I >-w 0> Ct: ~0 w .... <( "-I") ::> z 0 z (.) <( I") (f) ..., w -' <(
0 (.) ci 1/l (f) ci z z 1-
0 w (.) w 0 Ct: ..., w ::> 0 1-
----------~---0 Ct: <( ---------G: a. Cl
.. ..
(.) LJ._
:,638 .. ..
I 5536
z 0 >= <(
(.)
0 -' c w z -' 1.1.1 a.
C) ::;
<(Cl ~ (f)_
='Cl
I oz (f)<( ..
(.9
(
(
)
)
I
I i \
!
0 0
~
0 0
~
(/
I
/ I I i
tOtO oo 10 ~N 0
1>-()')0::
..;-<(
l'"l:::l oz U< ..;-(/)-,
0 oz
zl-u UJ UJ •• 0::-,w
:::lQI-c..:>a::< G:a.o
• (!)
, , JS 00\f:) PPO:)QS l'CJd :d MP"lS-Z:J-90-l0-6V£0:JS s !.::1-90-lO 61:>£0
0 0
~
~0~ ...:
0 u
1,() (/)
<D<O oo
10 ~N o·
1>-ma: v<>: I"');:) oz .~ u...: ~-(/) ....,
£"t 90 fZ I I MP lS-SJ--90-I I LQ-617£'005 SD!J-90-LO C) stroos aavJ ppoJas r~d :d
·~ ·*•-~ ~~~~~~~--------~--~~ '
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS (~-------""-:n~-------------' ~-· _-~}
DAILY FIELD REPORT -'
PROJECT: .:f· U ( W 1-l.( 1' 1::: fVI t 9~ /l-\ I L L
LOCATI~N: '8 L 4<V D i ;J (-,I UfA t-/ PROJECT NO.:SC.U 3'/ "1 TASK NO.: 01 :-'64 -
DESCRIPTION: C ..... 1Y 5rcCrtt'tLC SA.vtrt:uJ~ DATE:_: /C-day 1\JC\(month OS: y~~f
CONTRACTOR: NP., CLI Ef.-]1': -:LA1"1'M-N41,v•JA.(' u,£./ttJ, VJv\ tdP. ':'7:&1cJt.~<F:/).4Y' ·· · ••
WEATHER:/Itl~1L'r' S'vN•I"'r. t-1 ~ -=ic"' , .L ~ 45°7 • :1 1>-t ") , I
.0 .:.t.lf. ;;-:: .. A:e.tt..rY.~ .... Oi\.!. ... .S. r re: ·'· . .M .~.e:r .. i<li. ('.!, .. /";lJ.'(Q5.1:fL .. t: ~-. .(,v.1.c.~ ~.T.r.~'A.!f\.1
..... Y4f'. ':-! .'.l.? r~ ... {b.<s<i:1> .. ( )..!<,~} .C r:.f!-.fP.c.A !.r...., tJ .. .(1;_</C-) .......... :· ... :: ......... : ...... ~ .;, .-... .
..... ,y~ Is .":' .~¢: ~ 1. ... Jt.r.u-:f. ... /!3.B.1?-.:<.L.-fi.1.!. .... cf.. ;r:~ .c. ...... V..'.$ .1 L .CJ.. :. S.J... ·'.5o. ( 'L. _ .. .
-. .
..... S1.c,C.I(.f.t.l., (,, .. 4\2tf.A. P •••• ~@; .. ·*'·;. f.>:A.fl1t.-.ld.1. .. All.~~C..,t;..5: .-_F<: . .Z ... :fS.At;.l;.,l/.1?~.-_.flr-J_/)_--.. -
.... ' .. o.P!£,f?A.1<il~ ... ~r;ll. .... ~.ft.1.1'.~.e., ............ _ ................................. _ ... : ......... "' .... : .... .
-~-:61.t: ... .CJ..~S. '1 ... 5.-raa ... r?i 1--:E. .. J3?!<J~'J:;;,?_ .. A-t.( .. A'\ A Nl.f":C!,f .•. P.tL£ ... 15.' .C,~\1£~.1>. ... .
. . .. .. (1\Jy:(fl ... <-t\--J. .. .V.P.r:~tf-:t.A-,/Pi':--1 .... 0-, :4 c'3 F.!. fAa)'* .. :1(-f(:C.~C. .. A.~.<;: ... .I!-! .fl.-) Y. ........ .
. . . . . . . . L,<;.,.,J,(, :O:f."! ... (l F. . .l'!f'l!fi fZ t.:; ~T,c.;Y. .. ,()';.If I): .f'IZt. vi MSt.-Y ... PM 't 4 :·(f:('r:Lil:.~ 12' .... r? (f. ES .... .
';_ ··~
. . . . . . . . . OF . .V~.fl.'(rr,.~L> .. f::?.t.-1-r.HM< .. M~ ... f'/1,.-,t2. ... A.t.Jb ... c.fl-/t,f.Z. .. j)_(;_8it,($ ...... A<'! .. Ac.cis,J:. ,
........ f.?r:<tl.l>. .. A;; C C:: o.~tlS ... F.t,?,c,('C\ ... t..>.c..>:( . '1."~: f..,1 > ·r .. A <-«~ li .. NQ;:?-:r.t!: ... Si.D. 6 .. , .4':1-:-.: ..... ' ... : . . . :i
,._ 't-.. . . . .. 5.:·~ t;:{: r,::, .f.'. I-.(;;~-. . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... · ...... ' . .. ..... :.. .. . .. ;
U',c {J ."': ... C !'t:.lJ..A.Tt.'!L ... >..J /. ,t}."'f.K 1--IP E . A'5Sf6!J 1?. i::> .( W H.L-4 r:~.) .. .i'?U.Ct, _,-}]) ·:' ..
.. ..0.-:"! ~ /:<: -:1.'?. C. d.·'?. ;1 .·....... . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . JPrG.\ll!e; ixf~ ,
. ~-l./.'3 .. -:. :-Je.-51 .. P11 .... C.JSi. :-.A. .. :4. "? ... s Ht<.'v!t) .. o!V ... AJ'rACH6P . £1c uV<.E. •...
. . . . .. '5c.: .c. .. "~ AfVI. e ~.-.t:. .... '>7. t.CJ' ':1. ... w.H&.J:Y .. v..<:.. 7.-re. .P ...... /v!f/ kt;.. s: . Bl1.'-'-"' .. s1./.(kS
..... t.v .... :;;tb.c ... .;;.f. ... P.II. .. Fa~t£. (S~,;,.c f.~j;_<-r. PJ7. .t.uGs. .. ) .......•...
U~ .. ~0 :-: .. f~ $.:: . Pt. f ..... (. j SJ -: .t:$. .... (S.\:0 <: . F.t.(,p (ZC:.) •. $..;.:! L .. llc.LC W .. -:--:J.:; 1 .. l:>.t(f~(it/.,1
........ 'J"c)_ ... 1:> '· (., , ... V~ Y .. 5ll~t;";"l ~C: .. .("'(01~. --:<-:!· _.,;'.) <icn .<.-... ~· f..cO<,J(,t( $. . tJJ. TO_ .-f' C-~'1. fJ( 1. (f;f, . . .
......... b . .::H P ... .s 9.1.1.-.... /.~ ... ~1'/FFe. (4.., .. 1-/M!.J.'?. :"(P. .. _(2.J<::C,1.\I AX.e' .• .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ......... .
to ! o ... --:-. -:(;1?.. Cj_ .S:1. ~ <::,.., . .( 5:<>e." .. 6Ct?N.e) ...... 7<Jt... .. C.~M~S .. <"."< -r .. -MJ.@ M-4.•'-!.<.,'r:, .
. . . 1 . .AJ .. _Ac-.l. :' .. C..<..C?]) .$ . 9 c . V\4-(;<;; rZ., .•.. v! ~~ r-:.1.( vL I ... '10 . "'X (.,,VA' :f.!;:; .. '-!-':/~ ~.Pt.I~.T.t-l.v. ""'
' ~_j}•
. -;;_I )>11; .01. 4 Lk~ .. ,l)~~ S T 1 f:.F A:'!!::>. /!llo.l>!2.~A-:Tf: L \:' . $./."JoO.fH .~. 0.$1.ft1 . .N .. _5(_-.(,4(. !31,)t:/<!f:'( s; o>~l'l.'i!.
/.l, _ _:;.;(.,~. -:. T~ -~. <:U. sJ. .-:-D. (~IC-f. h(-).!';1~\ < .. tJp :r .. :'(oo }>n::;,,e,~£.,1"'. _7'q . t.X.Ui.\JAfiE: ......... .'
·--< ·.)
/£: ~-:-:././C.~:_.,.._ !<-'Pr."''~a . ..,.-, .. !'?12.G!t/<-:;,. _ F<>.e ... L.trNU{ •. :..... . ....... -.
Ht. r@ .. tl.t. '? . .,.. . Cl:t~L, .. N A l)t; 12 .. (l.A-1>. .. A'( . SOJl,-5 .. L_4R:.. >'\:N.l>. .. l>!SS<;tWVr .. 5o !I.... . ce~~~V.Il:/1'?1..,
. N.rfl<J)I.{ (/_. 12-E..Q (.)~","15 . ·":' ~ :-:. 3/~ .. (ti_ (.(.. .. 5'~ (,A-<-(.. a~ .. 13 V(..l<rf1 ... ~:o t <, . ).AM_ f'~C f/941!;_, -
..... 1~ !<., ·. L.4-6o {/.,A-roll 'f' f' &;. "11 ~ 6. •
113)-R.efoiZN -'_(c USj ~ ?tN/51-1 [o{,G,;.,;(, C:151-(),.
:-1'#-~ /f50-_c1S1-I£ ('5€.E_~rGul1.l')a se~r-M&l~T ,Z<._l> ClA'{ CP.MfS 1/P t;\.1
,.,_1../.'1 -tv ({/' Clo()5;efl511 .. '1' [tWI">IJ.l.eD· 0(51Au.J ~~F-£17[; L/16 '}'AMPLe.
( COPY TO: Fru-::-PER: /_F...J)_L._ / HRS: ~-5
QGEOS\'NTEC CONSULTANTS Ffl£ N9. '2-p.:.qFR .;... Ct-IA"P -..;;g ( tz.J) .. S\iEET NO.~~~-
. -=-~~~~-.-'/').'!;_ t -~·}.-' ' . "
GEoSYNTEC CoNSULTANTS
DAILY FIELD REPORT DATE: r day rJOV month 65 year
J 'k .1.1?. .7 .. '"1. f. .. 4.?~:;/.; :-. F: .. (~i;~. F.~.c~).e .. f.l#J>.cH$ff .. 6f.:<!'<"!:-! .. ~ .$.9 . .Y.'t> .... Y./. 0.-Y~$ .....
. . f!t?:t?. .. ll:ll .. ~t-:> ... "5fll'!b ... ..v.t. Ft.-'!.r¢~, ... ?·!.": 4 ~t: ..r :..:r .. i J..c::.(..~.o?. ,_ .. I1,'?.Yf;.« .. s.·( l!.IE. ':--!.1!~-.<o~ ..
. . . .. . . :fM:f ... ~~ <?, ':t'. ... 5. !-.Q.Y.6l-/ .•... ~ .. <:!'.C:~·~:. ?'.t.~.li."?.~ !>.t5 ... , . .<¢:.-~:<: .. :>?. :q;;_(,(( .•.... <§'~). ......... .
. t];-.?,1'.? :-:: J'(. .. S:;t;~ f. ::·.t;::; .. (~~-~-J:''/~.J.,. (l;'f'i?~r.s:rf .. f~-~ .?:"!~?.. y( !.'(~~~-.(~$.1.<.•.<:':-!J. . .II#. D .. .
. . 1'-f'.~.lli:.~+\ .. '?~.? ... ~.L.-':':-<: .. (-:--. ( -~:!.), .... ~r, ~ .: .M'I. /.li'.P. ;J.4<!. .?ti>.f. W.~.4\-S. .· ... (!-. -:1.'1. .--: .. ~.G-.CJ'.t:-H.f. .
. . :S~4'9:1~ ... :5.~.t>.~.4<-~4-~ ; .. HM.'P .-fcc .. ~'x;..c_.71.v.l'rf.(;._._ .. <)1?.1.~!~ .. 5M ft-12:. £wi-.. 4ff:~.t tt;, .. Lii!3 :1~?.T.''· .
~ IZ. 50 .--:-:f.f!. ,C.-1-:~.::J: .-.H.{>.?.~ .. f7.(.), .. f?.~,~f:?t.~ t!_ .• f!~C.<:i!'! .. C..V'. '(. ,.., .l::lq._'(. :5.tf.IJ~.l,9)<. j, _q~y_(,t{ ....
. .51 l>.tW.'·tt.t?.,. -~~1.1 ~.f. .. -~~-t:f_r:,I'J., j .5.' 1':\t;cr:f.H. :l:,P.t!. W/l(...LS .•.. -;,:t;V-:':({.. .. !!? (<!q_L,J.~ .. <:!-.1.'!'. .. C.I..c.~.$ .J ..•..••.
. . . . K~-~! ~.·( . .(~1. i?.mr>. 1-.t;. ,l?,,. 1:1 !.Pf.~ ~-~\--! .. 1.~ ... <f.A?/!-. "!."'! 1.if. ... i>.(.t;.P.: .. ~ .............................. .
,..... 13 I o . -~ 11?.. C:J51. --:.1, .. ~_e;t;:_ .F.rP.). •. /?.t: .L?'P.t.~'H .. f.'IJ ~ ... C.c;.~ ~-.. S.tf.tr.f.-.< 9.1,-1.-.. _t,q!-!(>.1/._ ....... .
. . . . . . . .;.t.D:t: .4>./?u .. i.-.S .... -~~i. : ................................................................................... .
.( ~?-.$. :-:. ,1;?,~~-"f\'TO:~ .. l5_. @.K_t~~-. &P.t?!!t!Y. t;.,. Et...<-!d> .. /lN.!:? .. Mr&.t..b~ .. 'IZ£-f19?-.,. -:1/?:C.t~:J. ~I
.... -~~~VA :1'<9.~ ... i>.<.$(~.N..·O~!-!e::.b, ..................................................................... .
.1~0. :: .. ff. .C.:t?.::J.. <f. . t,?<.C.-1!!1.~7(9!'! ... 11,...~?.<-:l!':~.s.. r3tfc:fZ!?. .. @.fi.l!r a. .... C.o.!!-:'.1?.4 d.t:4 .•... t.l.!!c.'t/D6.1:1. .. ~ B.t?..o~ . .AJ .. c. !--A. '1. .. ( ":'. .1.0 '-: .. ":".'?, o. ~ .) .•... -i-lr:ti2rb .. ( k<?P~ _:_.-:-: .'! :'.~ (/:. ¢.,., .. P.t.F.f/.?. Y.v:r ....... .
. . . . . . k)\. <,-1 v.fl.·-r.t.~-~ .. i>.a.et.a.. .•....... (!{ r-:J.<-.c,. .1.! j}_t;!_~ ... -~~?.;t .... >.~~-ft.( N. -~--................. .
. I 'i .1.0_ .. -:.ll!J./1-J.I! _e__ .lt1. ... .t .7.. 5.::1, . ,.:.S:fo.e;~<:; f.t.l.-.~ .•.. FJ. t,..lf. ... \ ? .... P.~:r:'f~:: P. ... (,.!tff.l.. 11 .. .F.<f.W. ..... .
iS o . . . . . . . S.tv.t,l) .t.\.. ... 13 ll.S.i-J.~ $., -~-Y 1 " . .0.0!:( !,..Y, .. tiN. Y.t:-.t:c,;, U. Te.b ............................................ .
:.;P.-1:~. !.J..Ji_. .-:. :j.f. C 1. 5:1.-:-d ... .( s~.C ... fi.(,.f.! tU. .. ~ .•... .$.c;i,l. ... I.$ .... 6~~~~N .. 5!1/'?P .. -~ /:5.o.tf~ .
. . . . . . . r:.t..':4 6~ ... A-N b ... fJ246ht.~1$ ... P. (. ... ~..Y.t>S:I.c! ~ P. ·'· ... SA! 1-.. -~-?. .. t£Mt .t,.~ .............. .
. . . . . . . &~.Cfl\l.k\'1.(:-J) •... 5A~:--n).~1.o."! ~ .: .. C«MA < •.\1 A'f(<?.!;> ... Qf. ~t:fS.'( . .+.. D.rf.r::r.(~V .. :(~ ... (.1-.'!1!-'!!?.1.#< .. .
~-.. \;,-1 I .T.H· ... €.:/'J.Q .. ().( ... t:v~·~-t;<:. P. -9. 'f. .. ft,fJ_F:t}:<>_A_ C?ftN.C>; ./ .. -r.~C: ... ~!? r;r e~ .. /!:-'!.~'-!if::~!.? .. _Ho_c_ ..
. :::.:: ::~:::~~0:~~;~~~:~~;~ :~~~~;,~~t::~~:.t:~-:1.~~: ~~~~:/;~: :?~::~~~:
......... ~~~\IA;<I?.f!. .. ~~-~·~E ... i?.t'-.i~ .. .<?f. .. ~:"..'X': .. :f~i'.; .. f~f.$ .. _N,P,T .. _l,O_G~(f:? ................... .
. l.?.l.C> .:-:.l4-!51:9!? ... ~ .. :(_q .. C~":':I. _c.,~~ .. tm.~.A-.< .. (;.~<;.,~ . .P.~~~~A)? ... fP.t( .. te-A-NCi :¥.7.'! l.lt.T.Y. .. .
. . . . . . lJ.(.. ~~~.c~.t~ ... ~<?;->.~.'f~!t .. ('J_oN,(. pe-:-·n::c;1e~., ................................................... .
15 ':15 .~ .. D~l7ftfl.:L. $.lt~ · .............................................................................. ..
. . . . . . ' ... ' .. ' ............ '' ................................ ' .................... ' .. ' ...... ' .. ' ................... .
. . . ' ......................... ' ...... ' .......... '.
COPY TO: PER:
CGEOSYNTEC CoNSULTANTS fiLE NO. 1-048-0FR SHEET NO. "2.. OF 7.. ----
GEoSYNTEC CoNSULTANTS [~--------------------------~]
DAILY FIELD REPORT
PROJECT: ::rue_ WP.i1f.. fot£.SA /L{I t.L
LOCATION: BLAAlDi/J{, I t)f Al--l PROJECT NO.: Sco1</"t TASK NO.: Ot·Ob
DESCRIPTION: Ct.AY 5' f <Xr<: PIU{ 2_AM{JUiJ6 DATE: ll day /JIJ \f month oS year
CONTRACTOR: NA Cue;tJ1: :IN1'!;.tJA 'i(otJAi.. U/1,\.AJ 1U Nl (uS4J C oK.I'o£,1 fro/oJ (1'vc) F/Z.t Dl+ '-(
WEATHER: 0\f€ilUtS'f,J-S'1o.QM$ 1-1 ""' S"s>? L ~ 35"? ' ' . '
.0::1-.0!=? .. --:.M,tl.t v.r£. .. IJrJ ... S.r:rc .. foV?~1. .... ~· .. ~JMH .. 13A.R,-r:t...C::rr .. f::ncrc) ... bi.SLu{.$ ...
. . . . . 6.•3.1'-A.i.~! !YG .. 5.-fl.t!-',{Jtt£.>. .. F/.29.~ .. -~ ... ~.r.c., .. S.1P.~Kf.( f..f{ .. /2.;f$. .-. $. ;:1,. ,F.o'l,... ..........
. . . . . . o.F..(.-.5.1:( !! .. .c..11.e ... :fcS:'(!.Jo;J. (>,.,. .. P£1/.. .. l'Hll~f. .. Cc'!iJ\Iff4~ 11-lrPN .... \rJ(.(!..1¢.G .. (o.l( r.oP.?>!<:'>! .
. . . . . . (6t;o.$Yi.,!:I./G'.C. J .. 0.'>!. ... lo ... N..o.v .. O.S. r·. fl}f.S. .Hd~ ... !J.~.~M .AGI.Z~.I:fp . 72> ... ,-"1;1:'-lP ...
. . .. .. D.l.t'l..~.<;!.t;l?. ... 0:i. .. .t..f4fuu .... D .. ~J?f/E:!<.7.'>. .Or, . ..:f.VC., .......................................
0. 'J.t.O.. :-:. M .Et: :'( ... WA 'It_ qr.J .. (.e-Qv.<P!.':t.E<V.T .. 4 f.'ciUI:f.'Q!e. ) .•... CA (.. {.{ l f J3. .. II<P.C. ........
. . .. u. 'J.r. ~ i. "t. /f.-.f? .... Y. £ ~ 1.~:>. 12-DAY .. .15 .... 8 .,;; 1 N.C.> .. VS. fi) ... b.'?. ... .Q.7'f:t.CJ2 ... r.'<-A N ."1. . AC 1? V:<?/GS
.... A .iMt>.fiiO. ... .Vli k l ... A.t..1¢.4.N.t(1.~!-Y ... St ... ~?.~b.·'· (t?fihA !-:-l.I.N..U. ... M.C!\ Vft:1 (PN.~ .. "1~.:' ..
..... iN..10 .. 5:f!).CX.I"t1,.~.StD~'?.t..P/J.eS.~ \5.<-e,.F,rc."~c: 2) .............................
o. =J:i s-. :-.. f.\ttrU v.~ . .A.-r ... c.zs.-.t ... ~f.r~ o ... u.-.f:.. /~(G.I!\-1 .t,.pc;,c, we. ::re r-t .. P ( f$ ............
6.-:rt..Q. •-:. :-<:.1..$ .~ .. "},;0 C.z. S.1 ~-B. .. -: ... ~tt.? r q . .r'f~4"/f1.cl:? .(o,.v. /o !':'Pil o..>J •.. M ArAI~'( .....
. . . . . . C>!Z~.~t-' .. S""-!Y.l> .... '-:J/.~~."'\~ .... ~'( . .'. . .:514!'!~? ... C~.C?~S .. (lo.A$ !~Y .. !Sf<o. KtN) •........
<.H35. :-:-... '1P .. C.Z. .$.1, -:-. (., .. :-. (:;.f.l.S. ./(.'f. .. 6.>r;CA )(A:/£0. {Pi>-'. /9. :'Y<!u <?~). ~ ..... MoS:fLY ... S'!"ND .
. . . . . ~/. . t= .. ,.,.,~$ .. 1 f3!.! '( . f?o'fi<;!.f$.1., ':( ... Ci,.A Y. ... A-1: .. 139.1:1 o.M .. :-:-: !"'V-1-'1 .t$~ .. C~ M. fJ A~fr£.t>. .1
....... We.-1.16.1.2.. .. S'~N. D, .CoN1At~ $ ... ~~~:r.. At,/b. ... I!A..4-P .. .f/(t:;t;tt,r .. OF. ... S."-4~0£'faNG; •..
. . . . . . . . 61!>:fAI!IJ ... S~Pt..t; . FPIZ_ ... C>F.t;'.-<;t7.E. ... .::.AB ... .-ftf->.7!1\./.C;. .. . ............. . .........
O:t,$0. :~ .. 1/! .. ~z.~J .-:-D ... -:. E.AS.I.C..'( .. ~~(A )I.A1i!.O .. {¢.r-:-J .19. NP".. 0~, .. 1:\VG. .. liY.Tq. .. .
. . . . . . S .t.t:>.~.S.Lo.J.'.tS' .... D.if ... .f? ( !..£. •· . ;t:!A(')! i-.Y .... /3t.l..C!>w.t;./. 7.41'/ .. >.4-N b.~ .. C ¢.,.,..T<'I< <'! $ ... S!"l ,-vh .~ .
. . . . . . );-:(.Qt:J!{.. /c;..I...A.r':t"$-(o.r:->fi:. .. .f'AI!-:1 r c;~s .. -:-. ~!.l-N .. 1.1-i':'.D ... :btFFrCv~:(. 'f.'q . (~,-':':$£-~, ....
. Q. i\' PS .. -:-: .. "ff .. C.Z 5.1.. :-.. t; ... -: .. 'TANNt $.~. Bf2awN. . .SAN. D. .. NQ'1.tt•$L '(. 'Yt:l?., 'r'. /?,.o.c.JM:{
... S:tbEY.li.U..S. .•.. cPM~S.Of-''1.fiA.Ar!.JI.,'I J!V. .LMG.lf. UM.b ... f.tr=(;t;5 .. Pt== . . . . . ..
• . . . . . . . •SI.VY~ SJ'<>f'J~., .. . . . . . . <. . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . . . . . . . .... . . . . . ... . ......
P. "?J.W. .. ":' .. '"[,0, C't.$ t. :-:E .. ":' .. :lANA!. It; 1-1 .. fJ/2.Q).o)l\,} . SAND .... v.( HNE~ .. AND ..........
. . . . . . <J,..r/o<;"f.c,)r:-i/! . P(6.C:G.S •... 5t<Ml£. ,S4~YhSfo<Y~ .. Pcf!-.CH ... Al2.~ ... Gilk~d .. 6tr1'.411\l .
. . . . . . 54M fL~ ... Fo.~ .... D F' F.,. f'. I 7.C. ... (..A/),Q IZA "ftJ/2 "( ... "'T8.1r N. G ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....
D.l/1-fo .. -:-.. '"fP.. c..z.sj, -: .G .. :-: .. 19\Ut v.A:1't£J:> .. -rc't:A y-... v. / W.Aor£12. .IN To ... .>r be.:-.
..... S.(...O p!!: .. C>F. 5--fDCl? ;P l (.£ .• coM•P.--2.A:-n .v,~. '!' . E.~ .vi?~ . ~r,.yc;s . 4r-Jl'> .. .
. <(),<\N't>S-?'P ,"-/€ • Oi>'fAI(\) §4!"-. Pi., if r-'ote. DF?'-5:/TfC .. U'l.e . -r~s (/ AJe;,. .
.. fAIAJ .AI\JD l->foflMS [10 :4rtcA -f5vAcv4-f'C.. • . . ...
loCA 'f/ OIVS ~ (Se:E ~~ G.utl..€. z P'o€., CZ.<;-j -r~s-r () l-(
COPY TO: t:(L~ PER: /k"__().{K_ (} HRS: S:D
QGEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS FILE NO. 1-0-4-0FR C~b Bta.l> SHEET NO._l _Of__L_
...... GEoSYNTEC CONSULTANTS [ J
DAILY FIELD REPORT ~-D-A-TE-:~1-:-1 --d a-y-----:-N-:-o~v:--m-o-n~th--:-0-:=S':o---y-ea-r~
'':" .C?.s ~o .. 7: A~J.Z.! ~:~ .. A.1 ... .f?-F.:?. :. s. ?-: ... $:fo.<; ~ .~ 1 ~~ :-•.• P.'. \-~ .. fft!? ... ~f.~ f':J. .. E~C:~~~!.6.+? ....... .
. . . . -:+:::.~,c; ~ :':1~.:t?.t.'6.? .... f?.~<:-.~~.C:i,-.Y.· ... ~f.~.4.~ ~ .. Y.If.0.~.1-1f.(~:~ .. P.~ ... !.9!~ .. .<>.t: .... ~~ ~: ....... .
. . . ... P,.fn.(':J .. A~!2:1.~.1fS .. U .. -.t.<i-.'1.:') ........... , ................................................................. .
' .OS.C! ~-:: .. :ft? .. ~f.~ ... $.~ ... A@ .... 1.,..0. ~~\':~ .. .$:~~f1!::1?. .. !r.:l?.'f. .1~.\'. .. S.e:r.~ ... 69. ~<':~.!:> ... f.<? ... .
. . . . ,,(.t,i.,.~ 9.W ... :~ ~~ .'T.I.?.dh ... "1. <,::, ••.. t:?!~f.P).I {',), ... S:~.~ Pi-,if. ... E.~?>ffl ... Ut'!.IP. klP. ?g?:>. .. .C~.I{~If.~."f~~~
...... S.9.1. ~-,< ... P J:i:\4! :v. ... .5.:>. .I.~ .... S'*t:<. e~-:-~ ..... ~-F.~:.:;~.-:-.~ /.e;p .. F?>,1: .. C?f:f. ~5:-(fK ... f.~-?r: {~.
/ . P. ~ !.Q. :-: ... .< .... o.kbe.~ ... D.I.G.J .. .t. N -:r P. .. ..5.• . .t>.~ ... ¢.F: .. s:r.o.Ck.P. J.<.tf.. r ... w. t?..l.1r?.IZ .... Q~!.-tr<':i.~
..... .S.o.u .. " ... S:-<'t 1':1..P..L.<=. .. .1=:<>/?... .. o.F!f: ~. :5it.-r:r? ... J. ~$.1. .~t:-~.t?. .... '>.f9:r.lff. (!?.F.~-:.?.~.:-.. ~).# ....... .
:-:-:-.. &.i.l:( ... A.FS":-. 5. :l . .4.+. IS ... .ti.IL!S' .. #.!ttN.Vi. ... .C.t:..tr.Y. .. N.Y.b ... .Ct..tr.'-1.. S/.c&.Ci. . .~. NP.T. ..... .
. . . . . . . (:1..~ U-.'-1. .. B~KffM ... tB.Y ... #.ANi> .•.. .P.!t.r?-'!. !<;..t,.._<; .. 5../.~~? .. l.t+N.G ,/!;. . .F.IZc;v,-A ... .?.~k(..~ ..
I "7\ fl ~ • £ f ...... .( :-:--.~ .. ·' .J .. -:f P. .... :\--: .. ~ ..... If! ......... 0(A~.tf.1 ~R.. ..... S.t;:(..F.r.~ ... :>. .. f¢1.~ ... -<'.:t.~. (~. L~'!l!9.r S.@
"' C6 .1..2_. :-: . .Co.r:-1 f:... t...-.1/.b ~-.. S.<?.l. <... ... >A.M. I?. t...i.N6 ... AS ... t.2.<t.t.~ ... t;'A ?.,~; . .; ... f.M.4 D. tf. ~-·· .......... ..
. . .. . . Q..e:.'T.Wl#. .. :r.~ .... Ct.J~. (1 <-~>< ....................................................................... .
. -:-:--. .A.IZI?I+N.C..~ .... Y.! f.(-/ .. ADMtN." .. $.I AI": f.' .. f~ ... S:#r 1?. .. .Sar.<-. .... 54MP..lf?., .. :J;.<!.C. .
. . . . . St:-1 1 f.S. ... SA><.¥. P.L.~.S. .... C. W.l.!.lf .. :r.v.C.. .. Ac.c~.v.M1.. J ... Y./ A ... VPS .... Co 1.1.tZ.t. ff.'te., ........ .
. . . . . . . . y (>.5 .... 0~9. <!.~.!:? .. ,1,.!:\\ !-.! :4-~ P. :· ...................................................................... .
·~. w.o.~K ... o!Y ... P..t?.P1~?.c,..:r .. :D~C.iJ.A<. c; .t,.?:f~ .!..r.~.r.-J ................................................ .
. /.l >.0 :-: .. .V.P.S ... f.1.C1<0 ... ~P. ... C:.ltM l'i.-£.5 ................................................................ ..
. ~ .. 1!1..4k.( ... C!Jl)t~§. .. o.F. ... -:::4~P.i.A/l/.6. .... &A-1?5': . .( F.!4v.4K$.) .. £o.IZ .................... .
. . . . . . kGN ... 1"'!-AY.o S (..f.: 1. .. (::r...Y. C.) .. , ................................................................. .
. I } .. J:>C .-;-; .t2-.!).)b .. 0. ~ ... W.o./{, f.;:,. M</. ....................................................................... .
. '......................... . ' .. '' ......................... ' ........................ ' ......................... .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' .................. ' ...... '. ' ................... ' .................................................. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' ....... " ..................................................... ' ' ............................ .
. . . ' ....................... ' ............................... ' ................... .
' ......... '' ............ .
( COPY TO: 1'1 L~
CGEOSYNTEC CoNSULTANTS FILE NO. 1-048-DFR SHEET NO. '"L.. OF Z. -·--
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Project Name: ::tv C vJ M .M
Project Number: ::; ( ,,:.; <.f ') -o, ... £'(
Site: C;LSl
Test Pit ID: C.4-S·i:C41
Test Pit Width: '""I t"'
Test Pit Depth: ~ 4
EquipmentUsed: c:.:,-r LJZL(!, >ID"
Subcontractor:
Depth (ft)
TEST PIT LOG
Date: lQ!'JcJ oS:
Weather: J'./l .. S vt.,~AJy
Test Pit Logged By: _...;(~,1;,~::---
Samples Collected by: ( 6
Depth to Water (ft): _".}p.
Immiscible Layer: -¥-I-N-
Start/Stop Time: ~ "1·. 1 <i /
Description
c , / . .::; 1':1:2. '1' , 1-1 C.t-r-r CA' lh J ;.;, HI 12 ~<..1:> c <-.4 y' _
t'"'JlV.l\..'\ ~Lt.$ .. "..JC> PA r21' t tt-€5 ~
.--. .. lJ;----"'/ Wt:"f7t.r'L 1 B.;zcw.t..~1 SH iZCD <'LA"( \.P/5tYAC:
-(f-1/v s,"f4.<:-At<.S ·o,::-"'fA•\J _,.,,.,-,,,c,Zr"\ L.
Cross Section View
1:-v.J
T !
-~Lj I
J
Samplers Signature:
Sketch of Test Pit Location
PID (ppm) Sample ill/Comments
I ,,v £ --7
) C',._, t'" -;'"A ~J
5'"'(e!C..tl;..:;{ y;SII?l€.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
Sketch of Test Pit Location
Project Name: 'I ..JL W/1<1"1
Project Number: 5U'3<r'l-ot --lb
Site: c; ,1. $1
Test Pit ID: (: :1 S~ -~l
Test Pit Width: ....:.~....:.,1 1::;_,.'---
Test Pit Depth: ~ 3 r
Equipment Used: -(',:..,.(:.'T~I-{-:-Z-:-c,-:-~-,..,-;:;:7----:HCC
Subcontractor: f'J .4
Date: iQNoJ o5"
Weather: M . $ v "' ,.; ·(
Test Pit Logged By: <' J
Samples Collected by-: _::.;:CB;..· .,...---
Depth to Water (ft): .-:-:-IV:,.:;:..:..·":__ __ _
Immiscible Layer: -¥+No
Start/Stop Time:
Depth (ft) Description PID (ppm) Sample ID/Comments
o ,~ ..,.~.s QJZ.D D 1 51-l -rA,v SAND wf PtNi.i'i.. \).<iY.
~cr..e c.t.ol:>s. r-.30 acckS.~
-~' I --s. <vi,.S.---~~ 12cl>Dt5i-1 '"1'A"-.) $.-'\"-' ":) ;....'-' ,_,,.v~ S Lt !~H1 "''1'
v..; e "f --r t: .Q. .~ 5 • tt: W-4 t.LS" t\JC'-1 5.,-,AOO ft-f;
Gt.:1 Aft"-S-r1FF. i>1 F F tt.: v "-1' f"o
6)(i" AVA:""ti£,..
Cross Section View
.!::::-,.-..tJ ~) .~ s
-y-. !_
~t>:"'\_ ·---~ I PLY ~ ...
-~3 ( " .. -~.~...,...., _, ~.
--L~ ~ •. . .. ··-"'·· ·::).-,C.-C><S C>
.J_ ·Vt,"'(i"t lL j 'St i!"::ft 12. --~· .:::;., D~ ~v'A L$-<)
l ' _______j
' -~ 1~
Samplers Signature: 1/z:_o d/' jl
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Project Name: :1v'C lvv IIIII"\
Project Number: s· co;, 4 ''. o i . of:,
Site: CJ-S 1-
TestPitiD: C1-S1-(c)
Test Pit Width: -I'Z.
Test Pit Depth: ~ :Z. S
Equipment Used: (4:1 1./ZI; i3 1ft,<!
Subcontractor: "-'"'
Depth (ft)
0-;.5-' IZ.< DDI ~ C( f!:;l!.t; o.v t.J
TEST PIT LOG
Date: iC tvc·.J ~,5·
Weather: .ez. ::·u;...;.~''t'
Test Pit Logged By: _ ___:(:;.;6;... __ _
Samples Collected by: _ _,C'-'6"---
Depth to Water (ft): NA
Immiscible Layer: .-¥+!>~­
Start/Stop Time:
Description
CL.<\T. btf-~r cu:..r '/0
f!. >.: C <!\VA. fit .~·t},:G,~)) <;; ·1'! rt=-S'r 'be !PI! ~~.-s: .
.M<J;s·ru,·::.E. A.J£',1:)~t"1 v .-u l IC'"" if"""' Lv( l':>t" (''{rl .
Cross Section View
~· s --. ..........-··"" T \ l.J,.,JfFotl?M t2('bt),SH 13/.!r..•w v
~.>-> I ""' ('LA'f L.JN I ~!-);[ .. V\ frlOt~·rvle'--
\" I I _L "'--·---.__
l -17.. '
·-" /
' ' ?'
Samplers Signature:
Sketch of Test Pit Location
PID (ppm) Sample ID/Comments
-f~Jc ,1\j -:'>
I "t
1
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
~~ 1-<',.,../'A
TEST PIT LOG
Date: /{) NO-.1 .:;:;;
Weather: /·LS.,.JA>,<Jf
Sketch of Test Pit Location
Project Name:.,{c')q ~-0 I o<::@
Project Number: S'ca$4'7 -ol-00
Site: C.1 S ;1. Test Pit Logged By: -~en:;· -,...,---
Samples Collected by: Cb
Test Pit ID: CJ'..S1-j))
Test Pit Width: __ -_:'7:"7-c-:::---
TestPitDepth: ~ 1-5"
Depth to Water (ft): Nil
Immiscible Layer: Yi'i't-
Start/Stop Time: Equipment Used: CM 4 2{, b bioi!
Subcontractor: tJ{>r
Depth (ft) Description
~ ---...... o;:. r 'i>tl':' ~<vi); s ;.,t (f,(J.cwt..! CLA'( '"' .. I
i, > ,:J,< i),Q. •'(' /]_(!) Ct..A"i
t,.,O ~
z~..c ~ z<; \...>(:'1'1'£.~ r '14...J c....,.y
'1~~ -~ ....... 3_-; wi!:-:'"ff.ll., tlii:.b Ci.AY
Cross Section View
b---
PID(ppm) Sample ID/Comments
.rJiA
·'-' ~ .....:rN ,.-...c. 5 t?~D015U Q/JPU~ ~Tl )(;RiP -· I ..
~·. ' 'S /!.:>U['.,t.f -::t i) c: w,-1Ll(; '. Q.€]) /J..!)P-"1' $() ,""" t,~ ~-{..<!!£) {:.t..~f.;..J (1 ..L, ' --· ,.·-----~~--~~ ----
~-.t-"5 -1A,._J" -,; ., s'tDc.w.tLu· -·· t .. , ... :t.-:·"'14l' t' t,. ~'tv&'( r/ ~---·--~---......-...
~ I c ,2C:I> 'l ', _ ...
L----......_! c;
'
Samplers Signature: a~).~ ~ #/ tK-,
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
:rue WA-tl"\ f£i)
ProjectName: S(..o>-1'1-ol-0{:; Date: ID rJov bS
Project Number: J/ Weather: M. 'S'vf">.J-V -"-'-'~~-'-----Site: C i. '5 .i Test Pit Logged By: _ _,c.,&'?;-;.---
" Samples Collected by: C($
Test Pit ID: C:is1-l/i.
Test Pit Width:
Test Pit Depth: _...:;~..:....,.,-:.-::-~
Equipment Used: CA1 <.({(, 6 i-kl£
Subcontractor: !V .A
Depth (ft)
c -.-v 71 5 t_,"". 1 -jV\D/ 5 '1
fo'lfwuL'i IN
('f1 U/V\I;LI£!)
Depth to Water (ft): .,....,.,~JJ.;;.·:;;;A'---­
Immiscible Layer:--¥-1-N
Start/Stop Time: -------
Description
,u.l) c cA'i-e.>::UivA r-e;
4 II-(;, #1 G'.;\SI t Y
(<..0 ') s
Cross Section View
Sketch of Test Pit Location
reg
/
_.1
PID(ppm) Sample ID/Comments
I ' 'II v _.......-.----------·-------~-· .. .)<~ -. -l "7t:MI·J"'~· S-r IZ<'i> ClAY f"\,;/
I ! -
1 I J ...-.... I r'" I .>
/1 ,
Samplers Signature:
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Project Name: ::fvC. w."'<M_
Project Number: Sco 3~ '> • C i ·· o (.
Site: C.i '5:1.
/~"),.
Test Pit ID: (j')1. -{16·
Test Pit Width: "'-o
Test Pit Depth: ~ 5
Equipment Used: G\1 4z(, 6 J.(ort
Subcontractor: NA
Depth (ft)
0-"'"~-·S il..:DD!!>i-1 l?>~w . ..:>
fV<.cS1t.>' biZ'( .
TEST PIT LOG
Date: iO tJov D:S
Weather: A. 5 '-'-"' w'-f
Test Pit Logged By: _ __;C::.'·..,• :---
Samples Collected by: __;CS,.·"'---
Depth to Water (ft): N .4
Inuniscible Layer: Y 1 J>l
Start/Stop Time:
Description
SA 'V 1:> \.rJ{ rr N.C:S
SOAA «: 5ft14L.L
.
(--++--®
(,_ :1" 4') V\Sr t '( C.;!.vMq}<~J? c L<'"!:.S.
(i>z 12<>1.lC, 1-1 :; ' e: w"'~L ~ . t{f§;>
.s:-s R.aDI54 ~/lA.v.0 G"A-v'D AAJb 612o~>vr.J SA Ali:>,
/Z,o1'1-/ v 11t.l Ft.veS • SM4<..L c t.ol::>~.
fl.ou(, '~ ,;, be """'-'-S. r o s-'1' t. .,. l>a. y.
Cross Section View
&s
\ -··
~'1. -s 1 '(U.T:>btS# 11P.z, "V.A.J
I ),q.\}1) vf F't.VI!; S _I
I "'s 1 -----~..........__...---------12.1if:>I>•~H f3tW;..J.V .j.
2 -~ .l Saow,"-.i 5AA:tb; -f)o HI t-v/ F•"-' ,; S.
J.._
1 ~I( r
Samplers Signature: (]~/Q h? u
-
Sketch of Test Pit Location
_Ir1
PID(ppm) Sample ID/Comments
'-"'L 1\J-:?
~~
I
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
d:b'
Date: If? (0 NOV Q$'
Weather: M ~ 5yN.Vi"'
Sketch of Test Pit Location
Project Name:~-6' :{:V(._ w M..v\
Project Number: $ C c :;> 4 c, -"i Oft,
Site:
TestPitiD: C1.51-@')
Test Pit Width: ...._IL
Test Pit Depth: ~ 3
Equipment Used: CA-r q Z(: 3 ikG
Subcontractor: 1\.J ,o.
Test Pit Logged By: C2>
Samples Collected by: Cf:,
Depth to Water (ft): jJA
Immiscible Layer:~.,..,.~-.----
Start/Stop Time: -------
Depth (ft) Description PID (ppm)
0 -~
C·· ~t . .,; 12 fi'.l>I::>•Sl-1 i"A;J "SA..,'t> w/Fr·ves.
/lil.oS-rL Y \:).QY, (2c,..l c. t4 !;, D6 wALLS. -
"-I.'S .--3.C f'A ,._,,.;iS 1-( tZ<:'O CL4-t'. R"~'' ··@ , . ..,_'I lf cf
f/"Ail'b C.LOOS. ,., 0 :$' 7(.. '1' biZV ..
'S /lA "' e -r 1-1 s· fOe WALLS::, ;..{Ai2t.> "1'0
t: >< c_.. VA-r'C •
Cross Section View
~vJ
' . l " . ,1..£1b<)l.{ -!A.,.J 54ttJ"D 'w~Ft.Ni£'$ (!o'.J&I.I. ~~ "'!. < ' ' .:S"IP& ""-?4!.to; +-~3' '"'. -;r~";;-;;;~·;;·i2£b" -ct.fi:;;· ~----~5-~~Y
....... ,£, ,j_ ~J()iWAo..L
.1-'·
' ~I 2' 1--I . /)
' '/ " . ..-r--l /
Samplers Signature:
Sample ID/Comments
\~ -·> E
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
r0)
Project Name:.~ ;;kJC. w M M
Project Number: Sco.>q'LOt-Olii
Site: C 1. S.i
Test Pit ID: CJ5J -{jj)
Test Pit Width: /'\..-fb'.
Test Pit Depth: ..,......,·_-_3::.,--::----:--
Equipment Used: C¥ l.( lC. 8 HDi':
Subcontractor: 1\l.A
TEST PIT LOG
Date: /o Nov o5
Weather: M. $ "·"'N'i
Test Pit Logged By: C6
Samples Collected by: --"C...::C>:._ __
Depth to Water (ft): ;vA
Immiscible Layer: "Y"'ti<r
Start/Stop Time:
Sketch of Test Pit Location
Depth (ft) Description PID (ppm) Sample ill/Comments
. \J c--
11.1d:>.l>ISH.i31ZilW"-.J CLAY· S<£.1"1/-i"IOtS-r'_
,,.._z."-<:C/ E.4<;tl'1 C.tt<>.vtl!>L~t> Ct.-o~S.
IZ.c'-' i:_,;J, ~;, blf!r'"i.L S ,
f:.E.l>i>·~N {J(loWl\J CLA'1 1 SoMit f>l!~ww ·-
( L-A"'f (.uJl)5. btl="t~• cu<."f fc IS'<Ui-JA<'G.
S/»oo·rt-1 5'tC>c~.->A<-i..~. 5{.b/1A/·t1Aots{.
Cross Section View
!
.r. -:) I
I 'S./Vtt:-'071{
o§ 1 /);f_ ·..,ALt..>
f-f --""I" ···-----r~ (
Samplers Signature:
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Project Name: :!tJ c. w""M
Project Number: '?Co5'1'1-or-Oie
Site: C$-5j_
Test Pit ID: Cj.<;j -fi)
TEST PIT LOG
Date: /{2 !JO\[ o '>
Weather: M. fu ... w't'
Test Pit Logged By: c.-:?,
Samples Collected by: Cf!:,
Test Pit Width: ~I D 1
Test Pit Depth: ~ <-'
Depth to Water (ft): tJA
Immiscible Layer: ·<\"'"' :;;;' J;:;q;-.:----
Equipment Used:t'.q.7 qzc,g 1-/q;f Start/Stop Time:
Subcontractor: AJ.t;.
Depth (ft) Description
,, A I 0 l· .,< • e£J)i:IISt-/ -r'.l\ ,J C.l.t\ ';"' 1:>/L '( """ CI!VMSL'-(.
r-lj" t/> cwi)S _ [21) <'6<1 S' tl)~ ""'"''-~ ·'014"1
5 <...cuGI+.
-<t.c: . 'l.o ll.t:l>1>t5t.l i;f..OVi>V UA'f . S (...( (,tf T l.'1' We7'fO(,
~y"-&"<1> Ci,C!tlS I pJC>'I (<.A,;, L '7'
cA. v 1"-13 '-""-D -.J.Ail..b '(o bxCAvA1~ .
Cross Section View
c--s
r ' """" "~ '"'' ~ \, ... $1 Dfi,.u1Lt 5
~"L' ~~·;;;;;-;;-;::-Aq' -~ .. ,,
J_ "'-?)i)fWA
1-/""'I b ; \ -
Samplers Signature:
~ "? .fJ /) /' /t:' t/r . .-/ -' '· )....__,/{ --
Sketch of Test Pit Location
:----. f@I rn ' \. \....
PID(ppm) Sample ill/Comments
~i ~ w
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Project Name: J).J C. VJ /'A. M
Project Number: S (o 3'i'l -o' -oiO
Site: C251 ~)
Test Pit ID: c'l51. ·@
Test Pit Width: /'-i D r
Test Pit Depth: _...... 5 1
Equipment Used: C~1 lf U, ()
Subcontractor: !IJ.A
Depth (ft)
o-~s~ l)lo~J rJ 5~AJ 1)
'5~t...Ji> S-ro~.;;
TEST PIT LOG
Date: /o ~vov bS
Weather: /!"-7v JJ AJY
Test Pit Logged By: C~
Samples Collected by: _ _;e:.;-fJ:;_ __
Depth to Water (ft): JJA
Immiscible Layer: ~
Start/Stop Time: -------
Description
'"' 1 5c ·"" l<: t""U.J'<. s ' (~"'J<.J"'(AIN<).
,:C oi'A (~/II'« ,rr ;; . S.<ZJ-<1-
/Vl<>iSI. t.ouG.t-1 5-t,)l"l.o-14t.l.-S -(f!A I
SLOU(,/,.{ t£A'f,tc'f
1"
I Cross Section View
t-_, \ c
l \ \.
-<;; I
1
L J -tv '
Samplers Signature:
·'?'i 1 /./ / /Uvu/
Sketch of Test Pit Location
mill''
./
PID(ppm) Sample ID/Comments
J/~ 9<
\r-1 ~')
J
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG ,, @ e><C 1,_0C. c;d> Sketch of Test Pit Location
Project Name: ::r vC. ·w MAll
ProjectNumber: SC034'1-0t-o{,;
Site: (z;Sj,
Test Pit ID: CZ,; 1 -(§)
Test Pit Width: "-/ o '
Test Pit Depth: --'-( I
Equipment Used: ('J!,f 4 ZC:-8 lii>rt
Subcontractor: tJ .A
Date: /C 100'J c '5', i/,.,ol.l o5
Weather: 111. 5vrV tJ'i'
Test Pit Logged By: C,5
Samples Collected by: --"c"'c!!>'----
Depth to Water (ft): AlA
lmmiseiale LayeL 'f tN
Start/Stop Time: -------
I"'
rJ
f'/
\.
Depth (ft) Description PID(ppm)
~-~'4' 81'Zb w ·'"' ')A ,.JD w I F'I.V t 5 . ")O."'-<: Ct. A'i
(Lot><:. (~z·'-'1'' ¢), Be<~-oG,.J w( fiAt>i>.,.zAn
t;, F' P:D fl."(. S'c;,_A·t1-A~)tS7. rz., u C-t-1
-:;1 Ql{l->Act.S ·w/ -<;L •' <.J(~t./ I .-J (,.
Cross Section View
c-\,J .•
~
1 5.Ztr_.i,J SAN!':> T f '
")',Nt oCI~i -~-
"Tii-f1ft.i MAiLkS -.,.;( Fr;.;G,<;_
ra c"" !)vCI<Iif, ·-'1 ;
ecs(( 1\ LL wALLS l
(Z..o ,; G. t-l . -k_
1--______ _:~r o ' I
'
Samplers Signature:
" 0~'-;~ c
J _/
Sample ID/Comments
~ c::.
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
e::><C. lD '"o'J c5 1 c..oc • .:.E:D ... .--:o:"sk="'e""t""!ch:--of~T=-es""t""P"'it""L="'o-c-a""ti'"o-n--.
Project Name: -;r .... c. WMM
Project Number: 5ko3i.f"1-Ci, Ch
Site: C l S1
Date: i I N t ·J :J S (fi,)
Weather: /GNt:J: M ,5 __ . u .;upJ : f(. "f5'
Test Pit Logged By: C<l
Samples Collected by: c6 ;{---s ;;;;:-.\ TestPitiD: t1 C2S::I-~
Test Pit Width: -"-t5 Depth to Water (ft): t-..3 A
Test Pit Depth: ,_ Lj. 5 Immiscible Layer: Y"ffl
Equipment Used: C!\·1 <t 2~(\ H~C: Start/Stop Time: -------
Subcontractor: 10 "'
Depth (ft) Description
c ...._ L/ I (,1.?c:-w N t sr-i '7A ,.J SAI'Jt), V-Jf f t.vt!>.
.)~11\l -/\ .. 1 ': S·f. P. v .;,:. t-1 <;1/)/.f; w "'d.-S..
~'I ' -"'-tf •.;:;; I A I' 1'1:. !\ f.' s !v ::)l!,. -6'1-{"6 r~c~s-, 6t "1 C t,n"f 1 .
fJt; 1 fr1 ,A'( i3c .S'~~ t: AA "1'C ,1..L4l 11~
"48tJ J~ ,o"J~V we: -r r ~:c 12. s·.r"-\ l-(.:7c...f
') I Dli' w A a.. l <;.:.
G\tillf-l\16l> $o11.. ( C• 1-J 1 A r fU":.,. Sc··AC
<;<: 1;:: I AND HAI!..b p1e te;; o>
:SA...;J> s--ro JJ£.
Cross Section View
(::::--w
··...-.-.,...._ l-1\--" ~ c-n-t .-• ._ -r //'.oV\:1 j\C.t..~ I ~;Jlt-v.J 1\.Jl':>h fA,/J ~I _.N\ . 5 ..._ ,t (N Li-< M'\it;> ""'!£:: _,-·A(._~ ..-... : .;.-' . -. ' .
I
~
PID (ppm)
c -.::,
. ,.,"-ldc"!.'i'!
?%:".'-
s 1~-"l(.Jl ··yt --~ J-_., {. -;
.:":..>I l)t-.: WJii.-L
(" ""'' ' \...(..-. I ' 1 v-l 't·r~vz. 9-\,.,j)l)
.~ t5 I
Samplers Signature: a;: jl t(? __ j}
Sample ID/Comments
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
{J;XC iO NO·< <S 1 Lo(,(,ct{)
Date: I I :'-.!C ·./ 0 '-;
Sketch of Test Pit Location
Project Name: :Z: iJG WMI"''
Project Number: $COJL/'ii-c I -Ok-
Site: C 1. S :l.
Weather: io_No\J; AA. S. ; u ?Jc·J~ oc. .·ts
Test Pit Logged By: (:6}
Test Pit ID: C l5 'j. -(i);
Samples Collected by: G3.
Test Pit Width: _...a·,
Test Pit Depth: ~ ~'
Equipment Used: 'i l~ 13 /J,c
Depth to Water (ft): N A
Immiscible Layer: ::_,'If-' f.nN<E:_'-'----
( ''"'f) Start/Stop Time:
Subcontractor: N A
Depth (ft) Description
::; --~1' fll'lk A.<!?') ,f;,Zo""' .,J '( .. A () . ~ JE~~~ :.>· ·f'<J ,;,_-x ' .._._,v ~,)I c:; ... li:S.
Cct.,c•QS t... A'( eli€-]> , N\o.$'fl-"f' OIL'<'.
<::AStl..-< t;:.<C A.JA1-'. I> . ~~ M-cSIL": i)-2-r'.
.-... 2;--51 B•hov."' < S H "'fAN SP•Nl:> vf F, ;v<f.S A..J 1::.
Ct..AV.S1c~li f'AC.'f!l~C.S ~t:AS,t'< {.l,!vPABtt0
"'"' b
bcFt<tCvL'f ro ('4!;..J11A QLe' .
5£" NU ~ !VtOt'S f ~
Cross Section View
PID (ppm) Sample ill/Comments
1 ·~ r 1-"' <: Aro.J0 .C-2ow:V :;,•1JJ.t. .. "'"I F'"''-S. ~
.J.. ( c''f.l-' .)r.J <: $c.:j·iti-
..... g ' ,cfA.rli> Pt li ( e..5 f1ih> .•. J~':SH fiND '50{1
TAM ')AN'> :;> tF ~A"' !)<'rot-JoE. > l v/ ,::-r.N:6!.J. '"f'-~ §.~"~ e'~· ~-~~VI ·J ~~~
fA I!. 'I' <t-t: { < ~
:);v\Y~ '.\f-.\ "1£~1H YV<.
;1'\AI!k S <:''~f'.J F !!(ct.
J ' ""-I h f
~
Samplers Signature:
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
TEST PIT LOG
Project Name: :1vL w/11\..M
ProjectNumber: S<csY'l -Ct-o0
Site: C: <. $ .i
Date:&£, lf:uD'JC.;tlLEbi!P It •\JC'.f D'S'
Weather: fO,..Jc··J · MS, rt 1\io'l: CC., fS
TestPitiD: Ct~·j~&'
Test Pit Width: _;_'~.::..!...tl~' ---
Test Pit Depth: 7-'~-:--'(.,"' .. :-:, -::;--;-::-
Equipment Used: C.tt1 4lfr.(!, 1/oC
Subcontractor: 1vA
Depth (ft)
Test Pit Logged By: Cfl.
Samples Collected by: Co
Depth to Water (ft): j\.)A
Immiscible Layer: ~
Start/Stop Time:
Description
c -<.,.t -rA. 1\J ;.J i ~ ~t 6Jl...ii...J ,V ) . .; "'() 'Wj F';JJt ~"
') <-."" I -!'\Al-!~1 ' v e.-~l y Iii;·:>[~(~ :; I be vvA<-t S
L-A 11..4 e ('it: I.E.~ C~· s.-.1 ..vb 5-ro,.JC (HMb)
(.A!i (...,to~ c v t, J.J -r t-f'f -~;I: ~'"' w [) '!) ~r o. vc
Pltd.C~ .-(1.''-::-'' tj) • J •
~
\ Cross Section View
t: ·t_. \
T \
·"-(.; r
l
I -It -_I
'
/ r7 -"---:~?
Samplers Signature:
Sketch of Test Pit Location
PID(ppm) Sample ID/Comments
\..,..) --?>
J..·
>').~
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
Project Name: J:vC-WM M
Project Number: 5c.o'3'1 c, -01. Oi?
Site: C 'Z. S ·:1.
Test Pit ID: C2.S :.). -@
Test Pit Width: --=r-=1.::,;~',-----
Test Pit Depth: -jC,.
Equipment Used: (A-1 4lC.I3 liCe·
Subcontractor: N A
TEST PIT LOG
Date: £..t.(.:. tV Nc-J c$" ,(0(.-£-,Ef> it NOV'-)
Weather: i(}Ny\.': ~'~...t"5, u Nt;\t~ \;·C? '1$.
Test Pit Logged By: __ .::;c~::·"--­
Samples Collected by: -~(!?,=::· :...__ __
Depth to Water (ft): Nf'>
Immiscible Layer: -¥+N
Start/Stop Time:
Sketch of Test Pit Location
1'-
t-.l
/,;:. D~ \
R
' ..)
Depth (ft) Description / S."'AJl) ( ~) PID (ppm) Sample ID/Comments
c. ....... -( 0 l 1 ArJ ~J· S t! fb>1.(r.M ..J . ~J l { f,~.JC S _,;\td !> .
$;D.NbS~'ft;,fJt: )t ,v\l ~Mbt $-'t · f1_c;p(, !-l
s d)c w A~.-t..5.. C. J\ S! L'r' "'X L "1 "t\ fE:-b ·
<;t /'~1 (! (,,,~~ "1 P.tiUi'S Cf SAN o<; 1Cn.JiZ
1\ i i
! Cross Section View
1 V·-7 &· I" -1
-_I" I
~--· . \ -----r---. ____
\ ---------v
--{D ' ~•::-'
! ..........
~ -,....._ f s.; ·-4
~ '
Samplers Signature:
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
.c.;.
Project Name:~ ;;C.-J(, WJ::t.M
Project Number: SU· Jt< '{ -· c ; -tC;
Site:
TEST PIT LOG
Date:
Weather: cx-J{U~ 1, --(,...5f£<(Jl.\
Test Pit Logged By: ~.;2,.
TestPit!D: CZ.~i-@':
Test Pit Width: ~to' Depth to Water (ft): . .,-;-:~tl.:;'A:....:....· __ _
Samples Collected by: c t>
Test Pit Depth: .A-)(J Immiscible Layer: --¥-1-N-'
Equipment Used: ff\:+ 0/lt, •'tik @)Start/Stop Time:
Subcontractor: (JI\ ~ LoAl>(lt
Depth (ft) Description
0---tc,. -.:4\NN!<;H .gJi.i•....JtJ $l\1Vl> ·v.!l t-;1~~4:::.~--
{!1i+J-,.:. ::;:.,_,c-.;-rucJc .>;<. '>EfL.v£!J. (~c:t1
___ U11LC f-::;,4 ~~, 0 S"~,~~.-\1.., J"'Vt"'' ~'"f~ 5t:~'.ii. b
t,..<.:. .... y<, t. s c ~ ·'i,:raJ f't Jo.J 1< c.&... A--1 .
t 4'5 ll y (:.,>:<:A -.fA "f£11
.#f. vv A~ 12-><.(A ..r A-rt£.£> '-"( L,, .c. v ete..
\
Cross Section View
c::-t e:-\ 7
~-! \
/1. f(J
Sketch of Test Pit Location
I'
N 'r[TI\ '
\ j \
PID (ppm) Sample ID/Comments
fJ _.......,/
j_ '•, ~ _______.->·':..-,...._ .
I .~tO --1
.--· /1
Samplers Signature:
GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
SOIL SAMPLE LOG
PROJECT: -:r v (_ \..J 141 -r<.:: ,Nl t:-;?A M I'-'-
LOCATION: p, <---"'"" t:> t ;.~ ( .. , u-r A t-1
DESCRIPTION: C.LA-! Sf<>( f-<. t7tl..~ SA-"' f'Lr.N C,
MATERIAL TYPE: 0L-A:f /54,..,t) •
SITE OFF -SITE LAB
SAMPLE SAMPLE
NO. NO.
VISUAL DESCRIPTION
SOURCE
(LOCATION/DEPTH)
I
DATE
SAMPLED
(day/mo)
c.JSJ A
~ c. I
D
.. ?·;!.,<-c! /\) ~~{ .,C 9.1 (f.A 'f. . . . ......................... Jtp . J:-1 cV .
• ~~;~~~/ Z0.'5f:.,;Jn .~£>. ...................... .
C$,
{)iJ<1f4/,..l8b PtLr;,,oJ\. ~6V,
...... ,:~"j'.i>•5;{ .. ~·21!~ .. c.<,':'f:'-( ... ,. . ?.<,.4\~10:> .1.~ £.'l'>:.~.ct.ll'~.;l:>. P.•l!,c .
: (jH:.CWN ,t't)o) t> /?e..tJJ>tS.'-. t:o/t. t)t={--$('f'r£ l_A}J. "7t!1"ft"f-t
.. i~>?q~<J .. ~;-.')~ •.......... bi'J-r4·,;.;&'jj ·~;,;,p'{€\.~
. .. 12';() . C.L:A.'f . :e . ,__ ... i~t;.ft ~1!1/.ft.D. F.Q.t (0.2,., ..
IZ'-P.D15U JJfl.O;,J}l) ;~.A!I-Iv r ((@..-t
. · ~e~r,i.i ·~!j t:>5;>.:. ;:;, .. · oai'A .;..e;; s;.;..:..;oi~ . . G...... . . . t:,ti~IYJSt~. ~-¢...<.!\.'<..... P.e(t .111e·o-JoP .~cf? . C ..
. I / . H-. . . . . €< i>!>tSi'. LI<Z•:).~o.) C~A,Y .
V ·.r t2GbDt$t4 ,....A,._, C L.A"f,.
) ~-.4 ......... ""'" '""~ . M'>'. ' . . . ...... .
j. ' .
t·~
-.1:-:' .
.. . ,e.tiwAJ· s·4,;,·~>,::;,:,:.e~;· ·············· ... ·· 1/
.. . SMl:>51~N ii.. F.M~~if". "!'S. . .. .. . . . . . .
!'Sit<c"N 54,.)1> w/ FMJii' if ,...:>o•J
.. "g,t~;.:,i,i;$H 'ii+:i '?Atif?. iJ,M..;,;_; ~M-.t'O£' 'P€1!: S'A"'t · · · · · · · · · · · .......... ~~~~~~:~~;;~:ttl~>; . '-~t-~•~>. }l? .. ~js.~:©. .... J .. [; .....
PROJECT NO.: Sc C·7:'-l'/ TASK NO.: Ci · de
YEAR: '2= s;-·
TEST
METHODS QA ID
............................. c' ............. ~· ..... ..'"" .. a.
COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ __
i!:!GEO SYNTEC CONSULTANTS FILE NO. 2-01-SSL SHEET NQ._i,_ or~
.......
-··-r F GEOSYNTEC CoNSULTANTS
SOIL SAMPLE LOG
PROJECT: :fvc.. W•ll-1~ fl'LCSA J1.-t1L.L
LOCATION: ~LA>.I\)1 NC. u "<l'r<-f
DESCRIPTION: (LAY 51oCK PiLt 5'4MPLIJ\JG.
MATERIAL TYPE: C<AY I5AN~ •
SITE OFF -SITE LAB
SAMPLE SAMPLE VISUAL DESCRIPTION
NO. NO.
"tANN <S?l g12.cw..s $<\"'!>
SOURCE
(LOCATION/DEPTH)
i
cz5.t-e. c F .
.. GI
l!..fs-91-A.
~FS'S1. -(3,
'' ::~:.::::~~;:;~:~b:. r~:~~u~cp~~;;~~~
''f..,..AJ,SH ll.QowAJ C<.A-\"'
. . . . -,, .. i-rA-:'-"'~ 1-1 •• MO~>HJ .. C,':k'(
COMMENTS:
DATE
SAMPLED
(day/mo)
PROJECT NO.: Sco~<-J'l TASK NO.: 61-0"'
YEAR: 2ro'>
nEST
METHODS QA ID
i ( N 0 ~.I''''' '"'' '" "''.'""" ""."." "''.'."' ""' L@'
. ''' . '' '' '' ''' ''' '' '.'''.'' ''. ''' '' .. '. '' '.''.' '' ''.'.'. ·•·' '·~·'""
c:; ••••••••••••••••••• ' •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• J. • • • • • ~ ••••
v . .. '''' '''''' '''' ''' '''.'' ''' ' .. '' .. ' '. ''.' '.' '.'.' ' ... ''. ~""
§
, • ' , , ' • • • • • , , • • ' • ' ' , • ' , ' • • • • • • • • ' • • • ' • • • • ' ' • • • , L • , , ' ' • , • '
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . ' ~ ....................... [• .......... '
--------------------------------------
,.GEOS'1NT£C CONSULTANTS FILE NO, 2-01-SSL SHEET NO.~ OF_L
'-
....
~ GEoSYNTEC CoNSULTANTs
PROJECT: :LJC-L,.)\{.t1"e' JVtEY.. ,IVCI LL.
0.-.J · 5t'"fE:" Cu+Y ~:..roe.J<:f?t(.£5
PROJECT NO.: $(0 '3'i "'!
LABORATORY TEST REQUEST
TASK NO. or -o<e
SOURCE: APPLICATION: -LAB SAMPLE NO.: __
C C1.51-~.c.,t:,C..
SHIPPER: UiO$ REQUESTED BY: t-b4Q IS r~D DATE: SITE SAMPLE ID.:C.ZS::I.-.·c, ,~, l6
. ltF';' -S :1 '-A_._~
AS COMPACTION HYDRAULIC CONDUCllVITY
RECEIVED PERCENT GRAIN SIZE A TTEBERG LIMITS CARBO ASTM D 698 c ASTM 0 5084 'X LOI ASTM D 1557 X ASTM D 2434 CONT. c MO!STUR PASSING ASTM 0 422 ASTM 0 4318 I CONTEST NO. 200 I A I B I c I D I TUBE SAMPLE c
I
REMOlDED SAMPLE )<; ASTM 0 4710
SOIL RELCQYP.,. ___ l( W=W,.,--(:tJ
TASK ~ CLASSIFJCA TION I 'Y,= (pet); w.-(:t)
\!;! w MAX OPT. DRY MOIST. K (cm/~ec) :> ASTM D 2487
IASTM
w 0 LL PL PI ORY MOIST. UNIT CONT. ot "' "' ~ ASTM ASTM I ASTM UNIT WT. CONT. WT. crc=-<••IJ D 2216 0 1140 c 311 03042
(~) (:>:) (~) (~) ( ) (") (:t) (pel) (:>:) (pel) (%) 1-
v v -_. v /
--
( DEADLINE I I I I T-T I I I ~---I I )
REMARKS:
pL. t:. fl: ~ ~ 1-lo 1.-T)
~
PERFORMANCE TEST 0 CONFORMANCE TEST 0
('251-C 1 t::'1 ·t G U>J1'1L/vPl't:;,~<; Vlt2.ec::t£t:> fO ..-rrc$"1.
DISTRIBUTE RESULTS TO: G\Oo!.\!,J·i£C.. (ih'f C.J CLIENT SITE omcE
©GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS FILE NO. 2-23-LTR
(SJ Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Site Sample ID: ClSI-C -
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K236
ASTMD:ll6,&li-IO, SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES Moisture Conltat, GniD Size. Attubcrg
D 4~l. D 8~. ClJ6 Limi11, Clanillurion
~ Coarse Fine Co~ Medium I Fine Silt Clay
g Cobbles
~ Gravel Sand Fines
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers I I'" 3" 2" 1.5" I "Jiol" 1/2"3/8" #4 #10 #2~ #40 #60 #100 #2~ ' -' ' 100
90 1'--
~ \ ~ 80
~ -70 "' ·~ ~ 60
E 50 ... .. = 40 "' I I -= 30 .. I I I I I " I I ... I .. 20 ... II I I I I IIIII! I I II I I I I I 10 II! II I I I
I! IJI I Ill I i II II!! i I I I 'II I i I II I I I ' I I. I ·d ' 0
1000 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size ( mm )
Sieve No. Size(mm) %Finer Hydrometer 80 Particle Diameter %Finer
3" 75 100.0 fmm\ 70
2" 50 100.0 'U"Line
1.5'' 37.5 100.0 60
I" 25 !00.0 0: CHorOH -50
3/4" ~ "A"line 19 100.0 .. .s 40 3/8" 9.5 100.0 ~ b #4 4.75 100.0 :g 30
#10 2.00 99.9 Gravel(%): ~
20 MHorOH #20 0.850 99.7 Sand("f,.): 32.4
#40 0.425 99.2 Fines(%): 67.6 10 -
#60 0.250 95.6 Silt(%): h<fi.orOL
0
#100 0.150 88.8 Clay(%): 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
#200 0.075 67.6 Liquid Limit ( LL)
Coeff. Unif. (Cu):
!specific Gravity(-): I I Coeff. Cun·. (Cc):
Client Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Lilnits Engineering Classification
Sample Sample Content <No.200 LL PL PI
!D. No: (%) (%) ( -) (-) (-)
CISI-C K236 9.6 67.6 34 15 19 CL -Sandy lean clay
Note(s):
(SJ Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Site SampleiD: CISI-E ' Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K237
ASTM D lll&. D ll.«<. .
SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES Molml~ Cvnlfllt, GnUa Sin, Att~rbn-g
n.m.ns~.CIJ6 Limit,, aauiflcatioa
• Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine Silt I Clay ~ Cobbles 8 ~ Gravel Sond Fines
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers ,,. 3" 2" LS" I 'l/4" 11:2"3/S" #4 #I~ #20 #4~ #60 #I~ #200 ' -' ' ' ' ' ' I
100
90 l\
~
';!. 80 --70 ... "" ...
iii: 60 ,.., ... 50 .. .. c 40 0:: -c 30 .. I I I ... .. .. 20 .. I Ill ! I ill I , I I I , i I I I I I I I I I, :11 I ) I I 10 ' 'I ' il i l I ['II' I I I !I ! II ,II 1 [!II! II I I lll! I I I I I I d:' I 0
1000 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size ( mm )
Sieve No. Size(mm) %Finer Hydrometer 80
Particle Diameter %Finer
3" 75 100.0 (mml 70
2" 50 100.0 •un Line 60 1.5'' 37.5 100.0 -
I" 25 100.0 0:: CHorOH -50 " " ~A" Line 3/4" 19 100.0 ~ ,!i 40
3/8" 9.5 100.0 "' h :!:! 30 #4 4.75 100.0 ~ #lfj 2.00 100.0 Gravel(%): 20
#20 0.850 99.9 Sand(%): 24.1 MHorOH
#40 0.425 99.7 Fines(%): 75.9 10
#60 0.250 98.7 Silt(%): MLorOL 0
#100 0.150 95.3 Clay{%): 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
#200 O.Q75 75.9 Liquid Limit ( LL )
Coeff. Unif. (Cu): I specific Gravity(-): I I Coeff. Curv. (Cc):
Client Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL PI
!D. No: ( %) (%) ( -) (-) (-)
C1S1-E K237 10.3 75.9 33 15 18 CL -Lean clay with sand
Note(s):
(S] Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Site Sample ID: CJSJ-G
.
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: 1<238
ASTMDl216.D 11-10, SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES Mohtun:: Ctmlmt, Grala Slz~, Atltrbefl!:
o.m.oa.q.CtJ6 Limih. O.,Sifk•lloa
• Coarse Fine Coarse Medium j Fine Silt I Cloy ~ Cobbles ]
~ Gravel s.,d Fines
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
I'" J" 2"1.5" 1'3/4"1/2"3/8" .. #I? #20 .... ~ #100 #2,00 ; ' ' 100
90
,..
~ \ ~ 80 • --70 ... ·r ~ 60
"' ,Q
~ 50
~ c 40 ..: I -c 30 ~ II I I I ~ ~ ' ~ 20 I .. I' I ! I ' II I I I I I .I I I I I I 10 I i .I I I I, " ' I ! i i
. I l i I! I J! I ! ! I Ill I I I I II I i I I II II i ' I II 0 ' I I I '
1000 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size ( mm )
Hydrometer 80 Sieve No. Size (mm) %Finer Particle Diameter %Finer
3" 15 100.0 fmml 70
2" 50 100.0 "U" Line 60 1.5" 37.5 100.0 ~
I" 25 100.0
;: CHorOH -50 • 3/4" 19 100.0 • "A"Line ~ .s 40
3/8" 9.5 99.5 l;> h #4 4.75 99.5 :~ 30
#10 2.00 99.2 Gravel(%): 0.5 £
20
#20 0.850 98.8 Sand(%): 33.3 MHorOH
#40 0.425 97.4 Fines(%): 66.2 10 -
#60 0.250 93.2 Silt(%): t.fi.orOL
0
#100 0.150 88.2 Clay(%): 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
#200 0.075 66.2 Liquid Limit ( LL )
Coeff. Unif. (Cu): I specific Gravity(-): I I Coeff. Curv. (Cc):
Client Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL PI
ID. No: (%) (%) (-) (-) (-)
CJSJ-G K238 8.0 66.2 31 14 17 CL -Sandy Jean clay
Note(s):
lSl Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: IDC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Site Sample ID: C2SI-C
.
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K239
ASThiDlli6.DIUD. SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES Moisture Coolml, GraiD Slu, An~rbtrg
D .,lllc, D 8.~. CU6 LimltJ. Chmtlle.uon
' c"""' Fine Coarse Medium I Fine Silt I Clay ~ Cobbles g
M Gravel Sond Fines
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
12" 3" 2" 1.5" l'S/4" lf1"JIS" #4 #I? #2~ #40 #60 #100 #100
' ' ' 100
90
~ '\ ~ 80 -1\ ~ 70 ... .. \ ·;;
=:: 60 ... -" ~ 50
" ~ 40 I I I ~ = 30 " :j I " ~ " 20 ' ' ' ..
' I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 I .;
10 I ' ill i I I ,;
iII I I II' I i I I" I I I I I I II I i :Ill l .II 0
1000 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size ( mm )
Sieve No. Size(mm} %Finer Hydrometer 80 Particle Diameter %Finer
3" 75 100.0 lmml 70
2" 50 100.0 "U" Line
1.5'' 31.5 100.0 60 ~
I" 25 100.0 0: CHorOH ~ 50 •
3/4" 19 100.0 • "A" Line " .. 40 3/8" 9.5 99.4 f ~ #4 4.75 99.1 30 •
#10 2.00 98.8 Gravel(%): 0.9 0:
20
#20 0.850 98.5 Sand(%): 51.8 Jl..frlorOH
#40 0.425 97.3 Fines(%): 47.3 10 -Silt(%): Ml..orOL #60 0.250 89.1 0
#100 0.150 67.4 Clay(%): 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
#200 O.Q15 47.3 Liquid Limit ( LL )
Coeff, Unif. (Co):
!specific Gravity H: I I Coeff. Curv. (Cc):
Client Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL PI -
ID. No: (%) (%) (-) (-) (-)
C2SI-C K239 8.5 47.3 32 15 17 CL • Saody leao clay
Note(s):
(S) Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Site Sample ID: C2SI·F
-
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K240
ASTM D lll6, D lUO, SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES Mobtun Content, Grain Slu, Atterberg
D4:l,Dli~.Cil6 Umte1, a-tfic:;ltlon
.li Coarse Fine Co= Medium I Fine Silt Clay
g Cobbles
M Gravel Sand Fines
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
12" 3~ ;·u· t'S/4"112"3/8" #4 #10 #20 #4(l #60 #100 #200
100
90 ....
~ 1\ '$. 80
~ \ ~ 70 -= .!!' " 60 ~ .., .., 50 ... .. = 40 ..: I ~ = 30 " I I I' I I II I I ... ... I " 20 I ... I I! I I I ! f I ! I ' 1,,1 I I I I I I I i ' I I 10 ,I iII j I
I I 1111 I! i I l I ' I I I I I I I I I I ! 0
1000 100 !0 l 0.! 0.0! 0.00! 0.000!
Grain Size ( mm )
Sieve No. Hydrometer 80 Size(mm) %Finer Particle Diameter %Finer
3" 75 100.0 lmm\ 70
2" 50 100.0 "U"Une
1.5" 37.5 100.0 60
I" 25 100.0 s: CHorOH -50 " 3/4" 100.0 • "A" Line 19 ., ..s 40
3/8" 9.5 98.6 ?;-
b :5:! 30 #4 4.75 97.8 ~ #10 2.00 97.3 Gra .. ·el (%): 2.2 20
#20 0.850 97.1 Sand(%): 37.6 MHorOH
#40 0.425 96.7 Fines(%~: 60.2 10 -
#60 0.250 92.3 Silt(%): ~n.orOL 0
#100 0.150 78.2 Clay{%): 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
#200 0.075 60.2 Liquid Limit ( LL )
fcoeff. Unif. (Cu): I
!specific Gravity H: I I Coeff. Curv. (Cc): I
Client Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL PI
ID. No: ( %) ( %) (-) (-) ( -)
C2S!-F K240 8.4 60.2 32 14 !8 CL -Sandy lean clay
Note(s):
ASTM D 2211i, D II.W,
D.t2:Z. D 8.-\l, CJJ6
Excel Geotechnical Testing
"Excellence in Testing"
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
Project No: 165
Site Sample ID: C2Si-G
Lab Sample No: K241
SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES M<1btuno Contn>t, Gnlin Siu, ~rg
Lindo, Claeltklltlon
Couse Medium I Fine Clay I Coarse Fine Silt j Cobbles Gravel Fines Sand
''" ' -
100
90
~
~ • 80 --70 ... .. ...
~ 60
>. ...
~ 50
'" " 40 ..:
= 30 '" :: '" 20 c.
10
0
I, IiI
II I I
1000
Sie'\'~ No, Size(mm)
--75
2" 50
lS 37.5
1' 25
3 4H 19
3 8" 9.5
=-! 4.75
=10 2.00
=10 0.850
=-10 0.425
=60 0.250
•1oo 0.150
•:oo 0.075
!specific Gra'\'ity (-): I
Client
Sample
ID.
C2Sl-G
Notet.s):
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
J" 2" 1.5" !'314M 1/2"318" ~ #!? #2~ #4~ ~ #100 #2~
I
\
\
\
I i I II .II I ,II II I I
IJ[ JJ Iii! i 1 I :1 i I ! ' II! I I I l ! I ill
100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size ( mm )
%Finer Hydrometer 80
Particle Diameter %Finer
100.0 lmm\ 70
100.0 "U" Line
100.0 60
100.0 0:: -50 CHorOH • • "A" line 100.0 .. .s 40
100.0 f ~ 100.0 30
99.7 Gravel(%): ~
20 MHorOH 99.4 Sand(%): 49.3
99.0 Fines(%): 50.7 10 -.
91.2 Silt(%): MLorOL 0
69.3 Clay(%): 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
50.7 Liquid Limit ( LL )
Coeff. Unif. (Cu):
I Coe-f'f. Curv. (Cc):
Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL PI
No: (%) ( %) (-) ( -) (-)
K241 9.9 50.7 35 17 18 CL -Sandy lean clay
~ Excel Geotechnical Testi.ng Project Name: lUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Site Sample ID: RFS-Sl-A
.
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K242
ASTMD2li6,Dll.40, SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES Moistun Conln!.t, Gnln Sb.c-, Att~rbcl"ll
D .J:ll, P 11.,q, Cll& Llmlu, a.,;nculon
~ Coarse Fine Co~ Medium I Fine Silt I Clay
~ Cobbles
Gmvel Sand Fines
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
I'" 3" 2"1.5" 1'3/4" !12"3/8" ... #10 #~0 #4~ #60 #!~ #~00 ; ' ' ' ' 100 I 90 I"'
~ ---...
~ 80
~ -70 -= ·~ ~ 60
"' -" so ~ "' = 40 ;;: I I -= 30 "' I •II ~ ~ I I I "' 20 ... ' I I I ' I !"!! II I I It I ' ,,
I I I I ' I li I ' 10 ' ' , I I I !li II ! i : j i j I ,II i I II!! I I ]II I I I ' I i ' II I 0
1000 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size ( mm )
Sieve No. Size (mm) %Finer Hydrometer 80
Particle Diameter %Finer
3" 75 100.0 tmm) 70
2" so 100.0 "U" Line
1.5'' 37.5 100.0 60
I" 25 100.0 0: CHorOH -50 ~ "A" Line H" !9 100.0 .,
,5 40
3/8" 9.5 100.0 f ~· #4 4.75 99.9 30
#10 2.00 99.7 Gravel(%): 0.1 20 MHorOH #20 0.850 99.1 Sand(%): 187
#40 0.425 98.1 Fines(%): 81.2 10
#60 0.2SO 95.7 Silt ("/o): ~n. orOL 0
#100 0.150 89.7 Clay(%): 0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
#200 0.075 81.2 Liquid Limit ( LL)
Coeff. Unif. (Cu):
lspeeific Gravity(-): I I Coeff. Cun. (Cc):
Client Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL P1
ID. No: ( %) ( %) ( -) ( -) ( -)
RF5-S1-A K242 9.9 81.2 53 16 37 CH-Fat clay with sand
Note{s):
(S] Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: lUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Site Sample ID: RF5-SI-B
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K243
A.STM D %116, D U.W, SOIL INDEX PROPERTIES Mol!care Contn>t, Gnlin Size. Attubcrg
D .tll, D 8~, CU6 Llmi111. Cblnlfk•llon
• Coarse Fine Coarse Medium I Fine Silt Clay ~ Cobbles g
~ Gravel Sand Fines
U.S. Standard Sieve Sizes and Numbers
1.2~ 3~ :r 1.s• 1'3/4" 112''318" #4 #I? #20 ~ ~0 #100 #100
' ' ' ' ' ' 100
90 1---
~ ' ;/! 80 --70 -= "" ·;;
~ 60
~ .0
~ 50
" = 40 ..: -= 30 " " ~ " 20 ' ... I ' I I I I Ill •
1
111 I 10 l1 I I I I ,. I i I i I I I I I Ill I I I I !I I I II, 0
1000 100 10 I 0.1 0.01 0.001 0.0001
Grain Size ( mm )
Sieve No. Size(mm) %Finer Hydrometer 80
Particle Diameter %Finer
3" 7; 100.0 lmml 70
2" 50 100.0 "U" Line
1.5'' 37.5 100.0 60
I" 2; 100.0 ;;: CHorOH ~ 50 ~ "A" Line 314" 19 100.0 .. .s 40
3/8" 9.5 100.0 ·€ ~ #4 4.7.:5 100.0 ~ 30
#10 2.00 99.7 Gravel(%): 20 t.lliorOH #20 0.850 99.3 Sand(%): 26.1
#40 0.425 98.1 Fines(%): 73.9 10
#60 0.250 94.4 Silt(%): MLorOL 0
#lOO 0.150 84.2 Clay(%): 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
#200 0.075 73.9 Liquid Limit ( LL )
Coeff. Unlf. (Cu):
Jspecific Gravity H: I I Coeff. Curv. (Cc):
Client Lab Moisture Fines Content Atterberg Limits Engineering Classification
Sample Sample Content <No. 200 LL PL PI
ID. No: (%) (%) (-) (-) (-)
RF5-Sl-B 1<243 9.6 73.9 40 14 26 CL -Lean clay with sand
Note(s):
(Sl Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165 . .
'
941 Forrest Stree~ Roswell, Georgia 30075 Client Sample ID: Mix 1*
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K265
ASThl D 1557 COMPACTION MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Modified ·Method B
130 ~ Gs=2.60 I
VGs~2.6; I Curves of 100% Sanuation l 125 for Specific Gravity Values
I ~ v~,~~75
120 • "\ ~ 115 ~ 110
~ ~ ~ .... .. 10:. ~ 105 -~ I I -= .. I I ·a; '0, ~ 100 I I -I I \I~ I I c I :::> I i I l c-95 I I I
~ l ~ ! I I
I I I 90 '
I I~ I
.~ 85 ~ 80 ~
" 75 ~ 70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Moisture Content ( % )
Client/Site Lab Maximum Optimum Remarks
Sample Sample Dry Unit Weight Moisture Content
!D. No: ( pcf) ( %)
Mix I* K265 125.4 10.4
Note(s):
*A mixture of equal volumes ofC!Sl-C, CIS I-E and CIS I-G.
Sl Excel Geotechnical Testing Project Name: lUC White Mesa Mill
"Excellence in Testing" Project No: 165
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075 Client Sample ID: Mix2*
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] Lab Sample No: K266
ASTMD 15!i7 COMPACTION MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP Modified ~ Metbod B
130
I ~ Gs=2.60 I
VG,-265 j Curves of 100% Saturation 1 125 • ~ Gs'"'2.70 for Specific Gravity Values
~Gs-275
120 ~ ~ 115 ~ 110
,-., ~ ~ .... " c. ._, 105 ...
I ~ I
.::
I "" ... :s: 100 ... I ~ !
·= I I
! >::> I I t' 95 A I ~~ I
90 I I
I ~ I
I
~ I 85 ~ 80 ~
' I ~ 75 ~ 70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Moisture Content ( % )
Client/Site Lab Maximum Optimum Remarks
Sample Sample Dry Unit Weight Moisture Content
!D. No: ( pcf) (%)
Mix2* K266 128.7 9.5
Note(s):
*A mixture of equal volumes ofC2Sl-C, C2Sl-F and C2Sl-G.
I ',, Excel Geotechnical Testing
~".ctT "Excellence in Testing"
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
·..;;' . Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST cr>
ASTMD5084 *
Project Name: rue White Mesa Mill
Project Number: 165
Client Name: GeoSyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: Mix 2* (See Note 2)
Lab Sample Number: K266
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value (em/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 11/27/2005
Specimen Test Specimen Initial Condition Test Conditions Hydraulic
Spec. Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
No. Prep. PI Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid !'l Gradient
(-) (em) (em) ( pcf) (%) (psi) (psi) (psi) (-) ( -) ( cm/s)
I R 5.99 7.21 118.4 14.6 90.0 60.0 30.0 DTW 23 3.2E-8
Notes:
1. Method C, "Falling· Head, Increaslng-Tailwater" test procedures were followed during the testing.
2. *A mixture of equal volumes ofC2Sl-C, C2Sl-F and C2Sl-G.
3. Specimen preparation: ST =Shelby Tube, R = Remolded, B = Block Sap1ple.
4. Type ofpenneant liquid: DTW = Deaired Tap Water, DDI = Deaired Deionized Water
• Deviations:
Laboratory temperature at 22±3 oc_
Test specimen fmal conditions are not presented.
~ Excel Geotechnical Testing
"Excellence in Testing"
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
-'<' . • Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST (t)
ASTMD5084 •
Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
Project Number: 165
Client Name: GeoSyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: Mix I* (See Note 2)
Lab Sample Number: K265
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value (em/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 11127/2005
Specimen Test Specimen Initial Condition Test Conditions Hydraulic
Spec. Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
No. Prep. Pl Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid (4) Gradient
( -) (em) (em) ( pcf) (%) (psi) (psi) (psi) ( -) ( -) ( cm/s)
I R 5.95 7.24 115.8 12.7 90.0 60.0 30.0 DTW 15 4.7E-7
Notes:
l. Method C, "Falling-Head, Increasing-Tailwater" test procedures were followed during the testing.
2. *A mixture of equal volumes ofCISI-C, CISL-E and CIS I-G.
3. Specimen preparation: ST ~ Shelby Tube, R ~Remolded, B ~Block Sample.
4. Type ofpermeant liquid: DTW = Deaired Tap Water, DDI = Deaired Deionized Water
* Deviations:
Labomtory temperature at 22%3 oc.
Test specimen Imal conditions are not presented.
,,.: Excel Geotechnical Testing •
"Excellence in Testing" ·~·' 941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST (I>
ASTMD5084 •
Project Name: mew White Mesa Mill
Project Number: 165
Client Name: GeoSyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: Mix I* (See Note 2)
Lab Sample Number: K265
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value (em/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 11/27/2005
Specimen Test Specimen Initial Condition Test Conditions Hydraulic
Spec. Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
No. Prep. ('J Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid ''1 Gradient
(-) (em) (em) (pcf) (%) (psi) (psi) (psi) (-) ( -) ( cm/s)
I R 5.91 7.24 114.6 15.6 90.0 60.0 30.0 DTW 23 2.1£-8
Notes:
1. Method C. "Falling-Head, Increasing-Tailwater" test procedures were followed during the testing.
2. *A mixture of equal volumes ofClSl-C, ClSl-E and CISl-G.
3. Specimen preparation: ST =Shelby Tube. R =Remolded, B =Block Sample.
4. Type ofpermeant liquid: DTW = Deaired Tap Water, DDI = Deaired Deionized Water
• Deviations:
Laboratory temperature at 22±3 °C
Test specimen final conditions are not presented.
..,. Excel Geotechnical Testing . ~··
"Excellence in Testing" ...
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
----... Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST (I)
ASTMD5084 •
Project Name: IUC White Mesa Mill
Project Number: 165
Client Name: GeoSyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: Mix 2* (See Note 2)
Lab Sample Number: K266
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value (em/sec): NA
Date Test Started: ll/27/2005 •.
Specimen Test Specimen Initial Condition Test Conditions Hydraulic
Spec. Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
No. Prep. 13> Length Diamete Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid 1'l Gradient
(-) (em) (em) ( pcf) (%) (psi) (psi) (psi) ( -) ( -) ( cm/s)
l R 5.97 7.23 ll8.6 11.7 90.0 60.0 30.0 DTW 22 5.7E-7
Notes:
I. Method C, "Falling-Head, Increasing-Taihvater" test procedures were followed during the testing.
2. *A mixture of equal volumes ofC2Sl-C, C2Sl-F and C2SI-G.
3. Specimen preparation: ST = Shelby Tube, R =Remolded, B =Block Sample.
4. Type ofpenneant liquid: DTW = Deaired Tap Water, DDI = Deaired Deionized Water
• Deviations:
Laboratory temperature at 22±3 oc.
Test specimen final conditions are not presented.
I p: Excel Geotechnical Testing -I' "Excellence in Testing" .. ,'".l 941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST (I)
* ASTMD5084
Project Name: nJC White Mesa Mill
Project Number: 165
Client Name: GeoSyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: Mix 3* (See Note 2)
Lab Sample Number: K267
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value (em/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 11/2712005
Specimen Test Specimen Initial Condition Test Conditions Hydraulic
Spec. Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consoli d. Permeant Average Conductivity
No. Prep. (31 Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid 1'' Gradient
( -) (em) (em) ( pcf) (%) (psi) (psi) (psi) ( -) (-) ( cm/s)
I R 5.97 7.25 116.9 13.1 90,0 60.0 30.0 DTW 23 4.6£-8
Notes:
1. Method C, "Falling-Head, Increasing-Tailwater" test procedures were foUowed during the testing.
2. *A mixture of equal volumes of RF5-Sl-A and RF5-Sl-B.
3. Specimen preparation: ST ~Shelby Tube, R ~Remolded, B ~Block Sample.
4. Type ofpermeant liquid: DTW = Deaired Tap Water, DDI = Deaired Deionized Water
* Deviations:
Laboratory temperature at 22±3 °C.
Test specimen frnal conditions are not presented.
II Excel Geotechnical Testing _· .·.I. "Excellence in Testing••
941 Forrest Street, Roswell, Georgia 30075
~· . Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
FLEXIBLE WALL PERMEABILITY TEST <'1
* ASTMD5084
Project Name: illC White Mesa Mill
Project Number: 165
Client Name: GeoSyntec Consultants
Site Sample ID: Mix 3* (See Note 2)
Lab Sample Number: K267
Material Type: Soil
Specified Value (em/sec): NA
Date Test Started: 11127/2005
Specimen Test Specimen Initial Condition Test Conditions Hydraulic
Spec. Spec. Spec. Dry Unit Moisture Cell Back Consolid. Permeant Average Conductivity
No. Prep. (J> Length Diameter Weight Content Press. Press. Press. Liquid t•l Gradient
(-) (em) (em) ( pcf) (%) (psi) (psi) (psi) (-) (-) ( cm/s)
I R 5.93 7.23 115.5 17.3 90.0 60.0 30.0 DTW 23 3.3E-8
Notes:
l. Method C, "Falling-Head, Increasing-Tailwater" test procedures were followed during the testing.
2. *A mi'Xture of equal volumes of RF5-Sl-A andRF5-Sl-B.
3. Specimen preparation: ST ~Shelby Tube, R ~Remolded, B ~Block Sample.
4. Type ofpermeant liquid: DTW = Deaired Tap Water, DDI = Deaired Deionized Water
* Deviations:
Laboratory temperature at 22±3 oc.
Test specimen fmal conditions are not presented.
~,
,~-/~/~\ _,
-\
)
j ' (
\
' l
-: L,
\ -~
I
.f /
i I !
SITE PLAN
WHITE MESA MILL
LEGEND
EXISTING MAJOR
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTROUR
EXISTING MINOR
TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR
(=:> STOCKPILE LOCATION
500 250 0
SCALE IN FEET
500

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1.5
ROGERS AND ASSOCIATES ENGINEERING CORP
1988
Ill
Ill
~ •
: -I !
I
Rogers & Associates Engineering Corporation
h
rporation
1
ly:
We have the tests ordered on the four es shippej to JS.
The ll ows:
Radium Emanation Diffusion
e Fraction Coeffic. Moisture Saturation
981±4 0.19±0.01 2.0£-02 1. .2 0.39
8.4£-03 1.44 19.1 0.56
ite (2,3,&5) 1. 6£-02 1.85 6.5 0.40
4.5£-04 1.84 12.5 0.
te #1 1. 6£-02 1.85 8.1 0.48
1.4£-03 1.84 .6 0.76
te f/4 1.1£-02 1.65 15.4 0.63
4.2£-04 1. 19.3 0.80
The es will be shipped back to you in the next few weeks. If you
any tions re ing results on es ease free to call.
ncere1 •
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
1{
A
E
~ogers & Associates Enginee ring. Corporation
Mr . C.O. Sealy
UMETCO Minerals Corporation
P.O . Box 1029
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Dear Mr . Sealy:
Post Office Box 330
Salt Lake City, Utah 84110
[phone]
May 9, 1988
C8700/ 22
The tests for radium content and radon emanation coefficient in the
following Sctmples have been completed and the results are as follows:
Sample
Random (2,3 & 5)
Site 1
Site 4
Radi urn ( pCi/ g)
1.9+0.1
2.2 + 0.1
2.0 + 0.1
Radon
Emanation Coefficient
0.19 + 0.04
0.20.+ 0.03
0.11 + 0.04
I f you have any questions regarding these res ults please feel free to
call Or . Kirk Ni el son or me.
RYB:m5
Si ncer ely,
~ lf/i-__
Renee Y. Bowser
Lab Supervi sor
515 East 4500 South· Salt Lake City. Urah 84107

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1.6
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC.
1999a
The onsite random fill and clay stockpiles were sampled in characterized in a program detailed in
the April 15, 1999, submittal to the NRC, "Additional Clarifications to the Whit~ Mesa Mill
Reclamation Plan". A copy of this sampling and testing program are included in this Attachment
as well as the results of the characterization work. The samples wee characterized for: · r
--Classification
-Grain size and sieve
-Atterberg limits
--Standard Proctor
The results of these tests for the onsite stockpiled material are included in this Attachment.
Soil Sampling and Testing Program White Mesa Mill
The purpose of this Soil Sampling and Testing Program is to verify the soil classification
gradation and compaction characteristics standard proctor of the stockpiled random fill and
clay materials that will be used for cover materials on the tailings cells at the White Mesa Mill
Additionally this program will verify the compaction characteristics and gradation of the random
fill materials utilized in the platform fill previously placed on Cells and
Sampling
Sampling will take place on each of six stockpiles of random fill designated RF-i through RF-6
on Exhibit two clay material stockpiles C-i and C-2 on Exhibit and on platform fill
areas in Cells total of samples will be taken from the random fill stockpiles Two
samples will be taken from the clayS stockpiles and three samples will be taken from the
covered areas of the cells Samples will be taken from test pits excavated by backhoe Samples
will be taken from depth of feet in stockpiles and from foot depth in cells One backhoe
bucket full of material will be taken from the test pit at the specified depth and dumped
separately This sample will be quartered and one quarter will be screened to minus rocks
over will be removed prior to screening Two five gallon sample buckets will be filled with
sample randomly selected from the screened fraction Oversized material remaining after the
screening of the sample will be visually classified and then weighed Sample locations will be
indicated on site map and sample descriptions will recorded and maintained in the facilitys
records total of fourteen samples will be submitted for testing during this program
Testing
Samples will be packaged and shipped to certified commercial testing laboratory for testing
Tests will be run on each sample for standard proctor ASTM D698 particle size analysis
ASTM Ci 17 and ASTM Ci36 soil classification ASTM D2487 and plasticity index
Atterberg limits ASTM D43 18
SOILTEST.DOC/04/14/99/250 PM
125
120
4-
115
110
105
100
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp
2.65
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.C LL P1
3/8 in No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65 16.1
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 122.0 pcf
Optimum moisture 11.6
116.1 pcf
13.8
21W
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
10 12 14 16 18 20
I-
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
LIQUID LIMIT
23Sandvetyclayeysisiltyred 19 25.156.9 SM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI.PL Pt %40 %200 IJSCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Coiporalion
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No 2-1-W
-_
Remarks
Tested By JH
Figure 22
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
s
"' 100 !
90
80
70
0::: w 60 z u::
1-50 z ·w
0 0::: 40 w rl.
30 N
20
10
0
200 100 10 1 0.1 O.o1 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm
%+~" %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY uses AASHTO .PL . lL
0 24.8 50.1 SM A-2-4(0) 19 23
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER ·SOIL DESCRIPTION
inches 0 number 0 0 Sand, very clayey, sl silty, red
size size
3 100.0 #4 75.2
2 100.0 #10 66.3
1.5 lOO.O -#20 60.7
I 91.1 #140 56.9
3/4 93.4 #60 49.9
1/2 86.3 #100 38.8
3/8 8U> #200 25.1
>< GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:
Dso -Q.726 ·· 0 Tested By: JH
030 0.0973
D1Q
>< COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
o Souroe: Sany>leNo.: 2-1-W
Client International Urani1.1D1"Corporation
Project: Soil Sample T....,.; ... ,.. WESTERN COLORADO T.ESTING~ INC. ~
Proiect No.: 804899 Figure 38
124
122
120
-4-
118
116
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
114
Water contents
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/8 in No.200USCSSAASHTO
N/A 2.65 13.4
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 122.8 pcf
Optimum moisture 10.8%
122.8 pcf
10.8
2W7C
Sand silty gravely br
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
10 12 14 16 18
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
SAND SILT %CLAY USCS AASHTO P1.LL
15.9 54.5 SM
jA-240
SIEVE
inches
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sand silty gravelytrown
100.0 84.1
100.0 10 80.3
1.5 1010 20 77.0
100.0 40 68.6
3/4 95.7 60 46.4
1/2 91.0 100 36.7
3/8 88.3 200 29.6
GRAIN SIZE REMARK
OTestedfly ii-0.344
D30 0.0781
D10
CO EFFICIENT
C0
Cu
Source Sample No 2W-7C
Client International UraniumCoiporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING4 INC Sail Sample Testing
Pro3ect No 804899 Fiaure 39
Ui
LL
Ui
Lii
0.
130
125
.4-
120
4-.
CO
II
-D
115
110
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp
2.65
105
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each ooint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL RI
3/4 in No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65 9.0
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 122.4 pcf
Optimum moisture 10.7
119.3 pcf
11.8
3iC
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
10 12 14 16 18 20
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
6C
50-
40
30
20-
10
%-
ML or OL MH orOH
10 30 50 70 90 110
LIQUID LIMIT
Sand clayey gravely brocm 26 16 69.510 36.9 SM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL RI %40 %200 -USCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No 3-iC
Remarks
Tested By ill
Figure 23
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
100
90
'Ni i i ~ ' : : : : : j l .
80
70
0::: w 60 z u:
t-50 z w 0 0::: 40 w a..
30
20
10
0
200 100
%+3" %.GRAVEL
0 17.4
SIEVE PERCENT FINER
inches 0 size
3 100.0
2 100.0
1.5 IOO,e
1 1.00.0
3/4 95.8
1/2 91.3
3/8 88.3
2<· GRAINSJZE
Dso 0.282
Dao
010
2< COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
0 Sot:JJ:CC:
I
I
f.
i i 1
%SAND
45.7
... fl ~ & 1 g ~ i • • •
' N . .
.
1 0.1 0.01
GRAIN SJZE-mm
%SILT %CJ.A'( uses AASHTO
SM A-4(0)
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOil-DESCRIPTION
number 0 o-sand, clayey, gravely, -brown
size
#4 82.6
#10 77.4
#2(} '74;(}
#40 69.5
#60 57.0
#100 47.2
#200 36.9 ...
REMARKS:
0 Tested By: JH
Sam_pleNo.: 3-lC
Client: International Uranium-Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO T.ESTING~ JNC. Project: Soil Sample Testing
Proiect No.: 804899 Fiaure
0.001
.P.L .LL
16 26 .
I l:
l f
I
40
'
118
116
9-
114
4-
Cl
112
110
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp
2.70
108
10
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each ooint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.70
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 117.7 pcf
Optimum moisture 15.1
117.7 pcf
15.1
ClSi
Clay sandy silty rd
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
12 14 16 18 20 22
Co
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
LIQUID LIMIT
Clay vejy sandy silty red 28 16 12 98.3 64.8
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Li It RI %40 %flO USCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No Cl-Si
Remarks
Tested Thy JH
Figure 24
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
CL
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY -I uSCS -I AASHTO PL LL
10 32 CL A-65 28
SIEVE
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER -SOIL DESCRIPTION
Clay vezy sandy silty red
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
1-00.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10
20
fl40
60
100
200
100.0
99.9
-99.5
983
96.2
92.3
64.8
REMARKS
Tested By JH
GRAIN SIZE
D30
D10
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
Source SamyleNo Cl-SI
Client International iJranium-Corporalion
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Soil Sample Testing
Project No 804899 Fioure 41
Lt
LU
LU
130
125
1-
120
ii
115
110
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp.G
2.65
105
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/4 in No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65 10.3
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 124.2 pcf
Optimum moisture 10.3
120.7 pcf
11.5
C2S1
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Prqject International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig Na
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
10 12 14 16 18 20
LU
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Sand clayey gravely broi 25 23 48.2 26.7 SM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LI PL P1 %c40 %200 IJSCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No C2-Sl
Remarks
Tested By JH
Figure 25
LiQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
50-
40-
--
Dashed line indicates the approximate
upper limit boundary for natural soils
20-
10
MLorOL
10
MH orOH
LIQUID LIMIT
10 110
LU
a-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
31-9 41.4
01
SM A-2-40 23
%3 %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %CLAY uscs S4ASHTO PL 11
25
SIEVE
inches
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVEl1
size
PERCENT FINER SOIL-DESCRIPTION
Sand clayey gravely trown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
96.6
9kB
90.0
84.9
80.3
10
20
40
60
100
200
68.1
58.0
52.1
48.2
43.8
36.0
263
GRSAJN SIZE -REMARKS
OTestedByJHD60
D30
10
2.48
0.0977
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Source Sample No C2-S1
Client International Uranium-Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Prt Soil Sample Testing
Project No 804899 Flaure 42
.4-
-D
114
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
104
10
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each ooint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.C LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 114.1 pcf
Optimum moisture 13.2%
114.1 pcf
13.2%
RF1S1
Cloy silty sandy red
Project No 804899
Pro-ject International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No 12
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
112
110
108
106
ZAV for
Sp
65
12 14 16 18 20 22
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
LIQUID LIMIT
27Claysiltysandyred 20 99A 63.1 ML
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL P1 %40 %C200 USCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No RF1-Sl
Remarks
Tested By JR
Figure 26
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
th -c
_L___A....A..ic -_A
100
-i 00
t1
Ui
Ui
Ui
a-
Sc---H----- ---
7C-------------4-
Sc--H-H-----
4C------.------------
3c--------s-------
2C --
ic ----
ooioo 10
GRAIN
0.1
SIZE-mm
0.01 0.001
%3 GRAVEL -I SAND %SILT %CLAY uSCS AASHTO P-I.
ci
369 ML A401J
SIEVE
Thebes
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER -SOIL DESCRIPTION
O-Claysiltysandyrcd
1.5
314
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
ioo.o
100.0
100.0
100.0
10
20
40
60
100
200
100.0
99.8
99.-S
99
97.6
95.2
63.1
D60
D30
D10
GRAJN.SIZE REMARXS
T-estedBy 311
C0
CU
COEFFICIENTS
oSoutce SampleNo.RF1-S1
Client InternalionaflJranium-Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Project Soil Sample Testing
Project No 804899 Fiqure 43
.4-
115
ci
110
100
10
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction app1 ied to each point
125
120
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
105 ZAV for
Sp.G
2.65
12 14 16 18 20 22
EIev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/8 in No.200USCSIAASHTO
N/A 2.65 18.0
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 118.3 pef
Optimum moisture 13.2
111.3 pcf
16.1
RF2S1
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JR
Fig No 13
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
LL
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%r GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY USGS AASHTO PL LL
oj
34.8 47.5 SM A-I-b
NP NPJ
SIEVE
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sand sl clayey gravely brown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
931
91.0
83.1
77.5
10
20
4060
100
200
65.2
52.6
44A
38.8
32.9
25.8
17.7
GRPJN SIZE -REMARKS
Tested By JHD60
D30
D10
3.42
0.203
COEFFICIENTS
C0
Cu
Soute Sample No RF2-S1
-CISt International UraniunrCorpocation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Project Soil Sample Testing
Project No 804899 Figure 44
135
9-
125
1-
120
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
110
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each ooint
EIev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/4 in No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65 18.2
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 128.7 pcf
Opt imum moisture 8.8
122.7 pcf
10.8
RF2-S2
Sand gravely brown
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No 14
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
130
115
ZAV for
Sp.C
2.65
10 12 14 16
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY USCS AASHTO .PL Ii
30.9 50.5 SM A-2-40
NIH
SIEVE
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER Oft DESCRIPTION
Sand gravclyirown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
961
94.8
88.4
80.1
10
20
40
60
100
200
69.1
61.1
56.4
.5L7
38.0
24.4
18.6
D30
D10
-GRAiN SIZE REMARKS
OTestedByiH1.73
0.190
COEFFICIENTS
C0
Cu
Source Sample No RF2-S2
GISt International Uranium-Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING tNC Project Soil Same Testing
Project No 804899 Fiqure 45
tt
Lii
El-
130
125
.4-
120
.4-
115
110
105
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp.G
2.65
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/4 in No.200USCSPASHTO
N/A 2.65 6.6
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 121.4 pcf
Optimum moisture 11.3
119.2 pcf
12.1
RF3S1
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY .N
Fig No 15
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
10 12 14 16 18 20
2upsojojdumgpopefaJd13N1DNIIS3IOOVUOT03NJ1SM
UOPUOthoaUmUtIfluoqnitquaq
HfPL
gJqpJJ
uMoiqAjaisi2oAvpjspuv
NOtLdI8OS3O1IOŁI3NIdIN9OŁJ3d
WWBZIS NIVŁJO
oomog IS-C.tffloNojdhws
.N31013d303
ŁI3NIdlN3OŁSd
iŁIOd3ŁI.LS31NOI1fl81ŁLLSI3ZIS3131J.Wd
112
110
.4-
108
106
104
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
LAY or
Sp .0
2.65
102
12
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correcflon applied to each ooint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 11L7 pcf
Optimum moisture 14.3
111.7 pef
14.3
RF3S2
Clay sandy red
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No 16
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
14 16 18 20 22 24
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
Clay very sandy red 28 20 69.0 39.0 SM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL P1 %c40 %200 USCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No RF3-S2
Remarks
Tested By JH
Figure 27
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
It
Dashed line indicates the
approximate___upper limit boundary for natural soils
_________________________________50-
/i__
40-
lI//I/Ill/I
30
___________________________ ____20-
10 ___.7
________
____________ML
c1rOL
MHorOH
47
10 30 50 70 90 110
LIQUID LIMIT
It
Ui
Ui
It
Ui
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
to
100
11 II 11111 liii iii
11 it ill liii
-H
2C ---
IC --___
200100 10 0.1 0.01 OMOi
GRAINSIZE mm
16.3 44.7
%3 %GRAVEL %SAND %SJLT %CLAY USCS AASHTO -FL U.
SM A-40
SIEVE
inches
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER SOIL UtbUMW1 run
Clay vecy sandy red
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
JOQ.0
98.7
94.0
90.8
10
20
40
60
100
200
83.7
78.2
73.4
69.0
63.7
45.5
39.0
GRAIN SIZE REMARKS
Tested By JH
D3
D10
0.222
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
Source Sample No RF3-S2
Client International UraniumCorporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING mic Prct Soil SamPle Testing
Project No R04899 Ficure 47
135
130
4-
C-
125
4.J
Co
120
115
110
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/4 in No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65 18.1
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 127.4 pcf
Optimum moisture 10.3
121.3 pcf
12.6
RF3S3
Sand clayey qrvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No 17
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
10 12 14 16 18
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
to
Ui
ElI II
8C
7C-
60-----
-------
--
---------
5C
x--------------
2C
10--------
200 100 10
GRAIN
0.1
SIZE mm
0.01 0.001
%a %GRAVEL %SAND SILT CLAY IJSCS AASHTO -P-I-JL
01
22.7 53.6 SM A..2-4o
jNPJNP
SIEVE
inches
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER -SOIL DESCRIPTION
Sand sI clayey gravely-brown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.4
97.4
90.9
86.2
10
20
40
60
100
200
77.3
69.7
64.1
35.8
38.8
30.2
23.7
GRAIN SIZE R-EMARKSC
OTested43yJHD60
D30
D10
0323
0.147
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
Source Sample No RF3-S3
Client InteniationalUranium-Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Project Soil Sample Testing
Project No 804899 Fioure 48
135
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
110
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/4 in No.200USCSAkSHTO
N/A 2.65 7.7
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 127.2 pcf
Optimum moisture 9.9
124.8 pcf
10.7
RF4S1
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No 18
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
130
.4-
125
Co
120
115
ZAV for
Sp.G
2.65
10 12 14 16
CD
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
LIQUID LIMIT
22Sandclayey gravely brown 19 51.1 25.5 SM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL P1 %40 %200 USCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No RF4-S1
Remarks
Tested By JH
Figure 28
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
___oo Th nnirr
LL
%SAND %SILT IJSCS AASHTO
91 -----
Sc --
be .S__60
50 -----.-
-----
2C ------
--H
----
oJ_
200 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
-GRAIN SIZE mm
311 GRAVEL -P1
31.8 42.7 SM A-2-40
SIEVE
inches
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
0-Sand clayey gravely brown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
88.1
86.1
81.3
77.7
10
20
40
60
100
W200
68.2
59.6
546
51.1
44.7
33.3
255
GRAIN SIZE REMARKS
TestedB ill060
D30
D10
2.11
0.122
COEFFICIENTS
C0
Source Sample No RF4-S1
International -Uranium Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Prct Soil Sample Testing
Project No 804899 Fioure 49
130
25
4-
120
4J
-o
115
110
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp.G
2.65
105
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each coint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/8 in No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A%2.65 4.1
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 123.5 pcf
Optimum moisture 11.3
122.2 pcf
11.7
RF5S1
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No 19
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
10 12 14 16 18 20
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
LIQUID LIMIT
24 18Sandclayey gravely brown 74.3 41.6 SM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION LL PL P1 %c40 %200 USCS
Project No 804899 Client Jnternational Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No RF5-S1
Remarks
Tested By iii
Figure 29
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
100
.5
AflJJ
U-
LU
C-
LU
0-
sJ-
70-
60----------
50------H------
4C------
30-------m----
2C-
ic
---h1-------
200 100 10 0_I 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE mm
%GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY uSCS AA.SHTO ft 1_i
13.2 45.2 SM
jAA0
SIEVE
inches
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER SOII DESCRIPTION
Sand claycy gravelytrown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.2
97.2
93.9
92.1
10
20
40
60
100
-200
868
82.2
783
743
67.8
56.2
4L6
GRAIN SIZE -REMARKS
OTcstedlly ii
D30
DID
-0.176
COEFFICIENTS
C0
Source Sample No RF5-S1
International UraniumCorporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTLNG INC Proect Soil Sample Testing
II Project No 804899 Fioure 50
130
.4-
120
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
Water content
Test specificotion ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
3/4 in No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A%2.65 11.7%
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 126.6 pcf
Optimum moisture 9.2
122.8 pcf
10.4
RF6S1
Sand clayey grvly brn
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig.No 20
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTINC INC
125
115
110
105
ZAV for
Sp.C
2.65
10 12 14 16 18
a-
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
LIQUID LIMIT
23Sandclayey gravely brom 16 30.653.0 GC-GM
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION IS PL P1 %c40 %c200 USCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No RF6-S1
Remarks
Tested By ill
Figure 30
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
.5 CD
100
90
80
70
0::: w 60 z u::
1-50 z w (.)
0::: 40 w 11..
30
20
10
0
200 100
%+~"
0
SIEVE
inches
size
3
2
1.5
1
3/4
1/2
3/8
><
><
o Source:
0
100.0
100.0
100;()
88.9
84.7
76.8
71.6
2.23
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%GRAVEl
35.3
PERCENT FINER
GRAIN SIZE
COEFFICIENTS
-' ' ' ' '
10
%SAND
34.1
-0 ;;;
SIEVE
number
size
#4
#10
#20
#40
#60
#100
#200
~~I i.
N: : :
1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN S1ZE -mm
%SILT %ClAY uses AASHTO -Pl -LL
-GC-GM A-2-4(-G) 16 23
PERCENT FINER -SOIL DESCRIPTION
--o-Sand, clayey, gravely;brown 0
64.7
59.5
56.7
53.0
46.4
39.1
30.6
REMARKS:
0 Tested By: JH
Sample No.: RF6-Sl
Client: International Uranium Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC. Project: Soil Sample Testing
Project No.· 804899 Fraure 51
114
112
110
108
106
104
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
10
ZAV for
Sp
2.65
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each coint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASI-ITO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 113.1 pcf
Optimum moisture 13.9
113.1 pcf
13.9
RF7S1
Clay sandy silty rd
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 5/3/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No 211
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
12 14 16 18 20 22
Co
0.
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
LIQUID LIMIT
23 20Clayveiysandysiltyred 88.6 56.8 ML
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION IL PL RI %40 %c200 USCS
Project No 804899 Client International Uranium Corporation
Project Soil Sample Testing
Source Sample No RF7-Sl
Remarks
Tested By ill
Figure 31
LIQUID AND PLASTIC LIMITS TEST REPORT
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
uJ
U-
Ui
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%SAND %SILT CLAY USGS AASHTO PL LL
7.1 36.1 IvIL A-40 20 23
SIEVE
inches
size
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
size
PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
Clay very sandy silty red
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
97.3
95.9
95.0
10
20
40
60
100
200
92.9
92.1
90.9
88.6
86.6
83.7
56.8
GRAIN SIZE REMARKS
Tested By ill
Drj
D10
0.0801
COEFFICIENTS
C0
Cu
Souze Sample No RF7-S1
Client Jnternalional Uranium Coiporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Project Soil Sample Testing
Project No 804899 Route 52

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.1.7
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC.
1999b
WESTERN 529 25 1/2 Road Suite B-lot
COLORADO Grand junction Colorado 81505
TESTING 970 241-7700 Fax [phone]
INC
May 1999
WCT 804899
International Uranium USA Corporation
Independence Plaza Suite 950
1050 17th street
Denver Colorado 80265
Subject soil Sample Testing
As requested we have completed the soil laboratory work for
International Uranium USA Corporation The testing performed
included the following
21 sieve Analyses
21 Atterberg Limit Tests
21 standard Proctor Tests ASTM D698
Hydrometer Tests
specific Gravity Tests
Data sheets are included for each test except for the specific
gravities The results of these are shown below
Samole Avg Bulk Avg Bulk Specific Apparent Absorption
Soecific Gravity Gravity SSD Soecific Gravity Percent
C2 TS1 2.337 2.468 2.673 5.372
C2 T52 2.137 2.392 2.868 11.926
C2 T53 2.157 2.359 2.705 9.396
C2 T54 2.265 2.432 2.721 7.402
C3 TS1 2.456 2.562 2.746 4.294
C3 TS2 2.349 2.464 2.655 4.900
WESTERN
COLORADO
TESTING,
INC.
5::!9 25 1/2 Road, Suite B-101
Grand junction, Colorado 81505
[phone] • Fax [phone]
International Uranium USA Corporation
Independence Plaza, Suite 950
1050 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
Subject: Soil Sample Testing
May 4, 1999
WCT #804899
As requested, we have completed the soil laboratory work for
International Uranium USA Corporation. The testing performed
included the following:
21 Sieve Analyses
21 Atterberg Limit Tests
21 Standard Proctor Tests (ASTM D698)
6 Hydrometer Tests
6 Specific Gravity Tests
Data sheets are included for each test except for the specific
gravities. The results of these are shown below:
§am me Avg. Bulk Avg. Bulk Specific Apparent Absorption
§oecific GravitY Gravity CSSQ) §oecjfic Gravity Percent
C2 • TS1 2.337 2.468 2.673 5.372
C2 • TS2 2.137 2.392 2.868 11.926
C2· TS3 2.157 2.359 2.705 9.396
C2-TS4 2.265 2.432 2.721 7.402
C3· TS1 2.456 2.562 2.746 4.294
C3 • TS2 2.349 2.464 2.655 4.900
Page
international Uranium USA Corporation
CT 804899
May 1999
We have been happy to be of service If you have any questions
or we may be of further assistance please call
Respectfully Submitted
1EESTflN COLOflDO TESTING INC
Wm Daniel Smith P.E
senior Geatechnical Engineer
WDS /xth
MsbioSO48LO5O4
Page 2
International Uranium USA Corporation
WCT #804899
May 4, 1999
We have been happy to be of service. If you have any questions
or we may be of further assistance, please call.
Respectfully Submitted:
WBST.._ COLORADO TBSTIBG, IBC.
wm. Daniel Smith, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
WDS/mh
Mlb:jca'B0481 0504
102
10
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
ZAV for
Sp.C
2.65
Elev/
Depth
Classification Not
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 109.2 pcf
Optimum moisture 15.2
109.2 pcf
15.2
C2ST1
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 4/27/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
112
110
.4-
108
.4
106
104
12 14 16 18 20 22
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
1 1 2 ~
~
' 110 \
' \
~"' ' ' ~ '" \ .....
0 ~ ~ ' a. 108 / ' \ . ~ "' ~ ' ..... , \ \ ·-..,
(/) -c \. ~
"0 \ \
"' 106 \ L. \ 0 , ' ' \
\ ' ZAV for
104 Sp.G.=
2.65
102
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content, :r.
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A, Standard
Oversize correct ion app I i ed to each point
Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > ~ <
Depth uses AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200
-N/A ~ 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density • 109.2 pcf 109.2 pcf C2-ST1
Optimum moisture = 15.2 ~ 15.2 ,:;
Project No.: 804899 Remarks:
Project: International Uranium Corporation SUBMITTED BY: Client
---Locot ion: Soi I Sample Testing TESTED BY: ..JH
Dote: 4/27/99
'
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC. 1 ;
Fig. No. !
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTiON TEST REPORT
%GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY JSCS AASHTO PL LL
6J
OA 75.9 19.3 4.8 SM
A-2-40 NP NPJ
SIEVE
thcfles
St
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
mmtscSt
PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTiON
SaS silty gabrown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10
20
40
60
100
200
100.0
100.0
98.7
94.1
77.5
46.8
24.1
060
D30
Djo
GRAIN SIZE REMARK
0TriH0.186
0.100
0.0241.E
C0
Cu
COEFFiCIENTS
2.25
7.74
Soume Sample No C2-ST1
Cm btanafioS thtum Ca
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC P6 Sod Sample TeSing
PitieS No 804899 Fbi 32
Lu
Lu
Lu
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
a:: ~ :::==::::::=:::==:::::::=:=:===::::::=:::....;1-\ ,._-r-i =:::::=::=::==::::::::==:=== ~ ~~--H+.rrr+-r~--~H+++.~+-~--~~~-+~-~\~i+H,-r~-r---rr+H~~--~~ ~ :\: i .
10~--H+rr~-r~--~~r++-r-+---+H++~-++;-+~+m~-r~\~r-~~~-r,_-r--~
o-....._--o-h"T"P!-+-f.q......j._o()
%+3" %GRAVEL %SAND %SILT %ClAY uses AASHTO PL LL
0 0.{) 75.9 19.3 4.8 SM A-2-4(0) NP NP
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
mctt. 0 n:-0 0 Sad, silty, gr&y111rown
siZit
3 100.0 #4 100.0
2 100.0 #10 100.0
1.5 100.-o ##2-() 98.7
1 100.0 #140 94.1 3/4 100.0 #160 77.5
1/2 100.0 #100 46.8
318 100.0 ##200 24.1
>< GRAIN SIZE ·REMARKS:
Deo ~.186 0 -r.IDd by: JH
D3Q 0.100
010 0.0241
>< COEFACIENTS
Cc 2.25
Cu 7.74
0 Soume: Sample No.: C2-ST1
Clint Intematiooal Uranium CclrpandioD
Project: Soil Sample T~ .. WESTERN COLORADO TESTING. INC. -
I Proiect No.: 804899 32
.4-
100
Iv
\98
94
17
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAAASHTO
2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 103.5 pcf
Optimum moisture 20.8
103.5 pcf
20.8
C2TS2
Project No 8.899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 4/27199
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
104
102
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp .0
65
96
18 19 20 21 22 23
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
104 """ ..... ~ 1""'11111 !II... ~
[.,-,.. "' ~ ZAV for 1/ 1\. Sp.G.= IJI ,r...
102 1/ ' 2.65
~ ~
~~ ' , ~ .... i/ 0 \ a. 100 j . ~~ >. ..... ~ ·-(/) 1/ c
Q)
"0 J
>. 98 ~~ '-Cl ,
96
94
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Water content, 7.
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A, Standard
Oversize correct ion opp I i ed to each point
Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > " < Depth uses AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200
N/A % 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density • 103.5 pet 103.5 pet C2-TS2
Optimum moisture = 20.8 ~ 20.8 ~
Project No.: 804899 Remarks:
Project: International Uranium Corporation SUBUITTED BY: Client
---Locot ion: Soi I Somp I e Testing TESTED BY: JH
Dote: 4/27/99
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING. INC. Fig. No. 2 I !
·'· ...
0.0 17.3 70.2 12.5 vfi4 A-40 29 29
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTiON
kicSs matter SiI claycy inty ay
e2e
100.0 100.0
100.0 10 100.0
1.5 100.0 20 99.9
100.0 40 99.4
3/4 100.0 60 97.8
1/2 100.0 100 94.3
3/8 100.0 200 82.7
GRAIN SIZE REMARKS
D60 0.0264 Teed By JR
D30 0.0170
D10
COEFFICIENTS
Cc
Cu
Source Sample No C2-TS2
Curt hinticoth Uranzmccrposicn
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Soil Sample Testing
PrcjsctNo 804899 Fat 33
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
LU
%3 %QRAVEL SILT %CLAY USCS AASHTO PU LU
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
100
90
80
70
0:
UJeo z u:
!zso
UJ 0
ffi<IO a..
30
20
10
0
200 100
%+3"
0
SIEVE
~
llze
3
2
1.5
1
3/4
1/2
318
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
%GRAVEL
0.0
PERCENT FINER
>< GRAINSIZE
Deo 0.6264
D:3o 0.0170
010
>< COEFfiCIENTS
0 Somee:
%SAND
17.3
SIEVE
'-:::-
#4
#110 #120
##40
#60
#100
#200
'
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE -mm
%SILT %CLAY
70.2 12.5
PERCENT FINER
0
100.0
100.0
99.9
99.4 97.8
94.3
82.7
Sample No.: C2-TS2
'
\.
0.01 .
uses AASHTO
ML A-4(0)
SOILQESCR!PTIQN
0 Silt. cbryey, smdy, gray
REMARKS:
oT.-By:JH
Clint Intanationa1 Unmium. Corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING. INC. Prcject Soil Sample Testing
! Praiect No.: 804899
0.001
PL LL
29 29
33
.4S
112
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each oint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Not
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCS.AASHTO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 110.4 pef
Optimum moisture 16.0
110.4 pcf
16.0
C2TS3
Project No eos99
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 4/27/99
Remarks
SUBMITT BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
110
.4-
106
104
102
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
ZAV for
Sp
65
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
112 1\
' ~
' 110 ~ ~ ~
~ !' ' _.,., ~ r\
" ' ' -~ ~ [\
u 1/ \ ' a. 108 ~ ~ r\ . ~ -,
>. ..... 1\ ;~ ·-fJl ' c ~ Q)
"U \
>. 106 \ ~ L.
0 • ' ~
' 104 ~ -,
ZAV for
\ Sp.G.=
\ 2.65
' 102 ~
12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Water content, ~
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A, Standard
Oversize correction opp I i ed to each point
Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > % <
Depth uses AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200
N/A % 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED t.AATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density • 110.4 pet 110.4 pet C2-TS.3
Optimum moisture = 16.0 " 16.0 ,;
Project No.: 804899 Remarks:
Project: International Uranium Corporation SUBt.IITTED BY: Client
Location: Soi I Sample Testing TESTED BY: JH
Date: 4/27/99
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC. Fig. No. 3
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%GRAVEL %SAND %SILT
0.0 67.3 23.2 9.5 SM A-2-40 NP NP
SIEVE
ks
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
nIu
PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
0ttcntown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10
20
40
60
100
200
100.0
100.0
98.9
94
86.9
59.6
32.7
D60
P30
D10
GRftJN SIZE REMARKS
OTaSedByJH11151
0.0425
0.0084
COEFFAENTS
Cc
Cu
1.42
18.03
Source Sample No C2-TS3
btcaticoth UCapaation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Pmje Soil Sample Testing
ERmiect No 804899 Flours 34
Ui
C-
Iii
a-
%CL.AY USCS JAASHTO PL LL
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
5 i 5 5 ~ ~ i i 8 ~ ~ 5 ~ S_ J; ~ ~ • •
~K "'
Q:: w ~~--H+.rrr+.-r~--~H+++~+-~--~~~-+~-b~+H,-r~-r--~rH~~--r-~ z u::
~ ~~--H*~~-r~--~H+~~+-~--~~~-++4-+~+m~-r~-r--~~~~--r-~ ~ ·~ ffi ~~--H+~~~~--~~~+-+-+---+H+++4-++4-+~~44~+-~--~~4-~--r-~ a.
%+3" %GRAVEL %SAND %SilT %ClAY uses AASHTO PL LL
0 0.0 67.3 23.2 9.5 SM A-2-4(0) NP NP
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
inclle5 0 "'::-0 0 Sad, silty, graytbrown
lizll
3 100.0 ##4 100.0
2 100.0 #10 100.0
1.5 100.0 #20 98.9
1 100.0 .##40 96.4
3/4 100.0 #60 86.9
1/2 100.0 #100 59.6
318 100.0 1200 32.7
>< GRAIN SIZE REMARK-8:
Dso -o.t51 0 Tesled By: JH
D3Q 0.0425
010 0.0084
>< COEFFICIENTS
Cc 1.42
Cu 18.03
0 Souwe: Sample No.: C2-TS3
<:lent Jntcmaticoal Unmium Corpontion
Pnlject: Soil Q--.Je r,.....m .. WESTERN COLORADO TESTINGt INC. ~ -
Pnliect No.: 804899 34
108
106
104
.4
102
100
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
ZAV for
Sp
2.65
98
14
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 1O74 pcf
Optimum moisture 16.8
107.4 pcf
16.8
C2TS4
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 4/27/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY .JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTTNC INC
16 18 20 22 24 26
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
108 ~
~
/ ~ \
1/ \. \
~ ' \ 106 ~~ ~ \ , ' ' IL \ ~
\ ' '+-, \ 0 a. 104 \ \. . \ \ >. ... , \_ ·-Ill c ' Q)
"0 \ \
>. 102 ' I..
Cl \
~
' 100 \.
\. ZAV for
\ Sp.G.= \ 2.65 '
98 \.
14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Water content. :r.
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A, Standard
Oversize correct ion app I i ed to each point
Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > % <
Depth uses AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200
N/A % 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density • 107.4 pet 107.4 pcf C2-TS4
Optimum moisture = 16.8 X 16.8 %
Project No.: 804899 Remarks:
Project: International Uranium Corporation SUBMITTED BY: Client --Location: Soi I S.ample Testing TESTED BY: JH
Date: 4/27/99
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC. Fig. No. 4
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%GRAVEL 4%SAND SILT CLAY USCS AASHTO PL LL
0.0 67.8 28.7 3.5 SM
A-2-40 ThP NIJ
SIEVE
kiches
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
nwtsr
PERCENT FINER SOIL DESCRIPTION
Send ty gay/frown
2.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
1010
10
20
40
60
100
200
100.0
99.8
99.4
97.8
85.4
54.4
32.2
GRAIN SIZE REMARKS
TesadSyt JR
Dx
D10
0.164
0.0376
0.0189
Cc
Cu
COEFFICIENTS
0.45
8.69
Source Sample No C2-TS4
Mmficnth UCorpcnlion
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING1 INCa Project Soil Sample Testing
No 804899
C-
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRJBUTION TEST REPORT
~ .. ::r ~ a i I 8 i I • • 100 ~t\
90
80
1\
!'
70
0::: w 60 z i!: .... 50 z w (.)
0::: ~ w a..
1\: I\: I ,
30 i
20
10
0
200 100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN stZE -mm
%+3" %GRAVEl %SAND %SilT %CLAY uses ~0 PL LL
0 0.0 67.8 28.7 3.5 SM A-2-4(0) NP NP
SIEVE PERCENT FINER SIEVE PERCENT FINER $OIL DESCRIPTION
incllea 0 I1UII'Ib« 0 0 Sad, silty, grayl1lrown
size -3 100.0 #4 100.0
2.5 100.0 #10 99.8
2 100.0 1120 99.4
I 100.0 t#40 .97.8
3/4 100.0 #60 85.4
1/2 100.0 #100 54.4
318 100;0 11200 32.2
>< GRAIN SIZE REMARKS:
Deo 0.164 OT--.clBy:JH
D3Q 0.0376
010 0.0189
>< COEFFJCIENTS
Cc 0.45
Cu 8.69
0 Source: Sample No.: C2-TS4
an: Jmr.maticmal Uranium-corporation
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC~ -Project Soil Sample Testing
I~ No.: 804899 35
,.
108
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
98
10
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each ooint
Elev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 105.7 pcf
Optimum moisture 16.0
105.7 pcf
16.0
C3-TS1
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 4/27/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
106
.4-
104
4-
102
100
ZAV for
Sp.G
2.65
12 14 16 18 20 22
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
108 1\
' \
1\
106 \
~
... ~ .... ....... ~ ' ~ II"' r\ !\
~ i\. ' ZAV for -~ 0 ~ Sp.G.= Q. 104 v ~ 2.65 . ~ 1\ >.
+J ~ ·-Ul _, c Q) u ~ ~
>. 102 ~~ ~
0
100
98
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content, %
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A, Standard
Oversize correction opp I ied to each point
Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI % > % <
Depth uses AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200
N/A % 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density • 105.7 pet 105.7 pet C3-TS1
Optimum moisture = 16.0% 16.0 %
Project No.: 804899 Remarks:
Project: International Uranium Corporation SUBMITTED BY: Client --Locot ion: Soi I Sample Testing TESTED BY: JH
Dote: 4/27/99
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING, INC. Fig. No. s ' ;-:
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
0.0 39.2 60.3 0.5 ML A-40 NP NP
SIEVE
Sties
Sn
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
number
Sn
PERCENT FINER SOII DESCRIPTION
SiIt ssthy trown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10
20
4060
100
200
100.0
100.0
99.9
99.1
96.3
87.8
60.8
GRAiN SIZE REMARKS
OTetSytJH
_______________________________
060
D30
D10
0.0738
0.0364
0.0166
COEFFICIENT
1.08
4.45
Source Sample No C3-TS1
Ct btunaliooth UCpcntion
WESTERN COLORADO TES11NG INCa Prcjsct Soil Sample Testing
PmiNo 804899 Fan 36
Lii
%3 I%GRAVELI %SAND %SILT %CLAY USCS IAASHTOPLILL
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
5 i 5 .s 5 .& .& ~ Ji 0 .. 1:! " 100
90 ! I
80 ' 70
0::: Weo z u::: ..... 50 z w (.)
ffi.w ' ' a..
30
20
10
0
200 100 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE-mm
%+3" %GRAVEl %SAND %SILT %ClAY uses AASHTO PL LL
0 0.0 39.2 60.3 0:5 ML A-4(0) NP NP
SIEVE
~
slza
3
2
1.5
1
3/4
112
318
><
><
PERCENT FINER
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0738
0.0364
0.0166
GRAIN SIZE
COEFFICIENTS
Cc 1.08
Cu 4.45
0 Souo:e:
SIEVE
number
sizll
#4
#10
1120
1#40
1160
#100
11200
0
100.0
100.0
99.9
99-1
96.3
87.8
60.8
PERCENT FINER
Sao!Plc No.: C3-TSl
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0 Silt, SIDdy, -brown
REMARKS:
· 0 TOIIIDd By: .JH
Clint IDtaDationa1 Unmium-cmporatioo
WESTERN COLORADO TESnNG~ INC.. Prqect Soil Sample Testing
-I Praiect No.: 804899 36
108
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
98
10
Water content
Test specification ASTM 69891 Procedure Standard
Oversize correction applied to each point
EIev/
Depth
Classification Nat
Moist Sp.G LL P1
No.4 No.200USCSAASHTO
N/A 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry density 105.4 pcf
Opt imum moisture 15.3
105.4 pcf
15.3
C3-TS2
Project No 804899
Project International Uranium Corporation
Location Soil Sample Testing
Date 4/27/99
Remarks
SUBMITTED BY Client
TESTED BY JH
Fig No
MOISTUREDENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC
106
C-
104
102
100
ZAV for
2.65
12 14 16 18 20 22
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
108 ~
\
\
106 \.
~
~ ' -......
" \. ~
" ' ' ZAV for -~ \ u Sp.G.= a. 104
J ' 2.65 . I ~ >.
+' ~ '\ ·-(/) Jr c
Q)
"0 if'
>. 102 " I.. a ,
100
98
10 12 14 16 18 20 22
Water content, :r.
Test specification: ASTM D 698-91 Procedure A, Standard
Oversize correct ion applied to each point
Elev/ Classification Nat. Sp.G. LL PI :r. > " < Depth uses AASHTO Moist. No.4 No.200
N/A 7. 2.65
ROCK CORRECTED TEST RESULTS UNCORRECTED MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
Maximum dry dens i ty • 105.4 pcf 105.4 pcf C3-TS2
Optimum moisture = 15.3 " 15.3 ,;
Project No.: 804899 Remarks:
Project: International Uranium Corporation SUBMITTED BY: Client --· Location: Soi I Sample Testing TESTED BY: JH
Date: 4/27/99
MOISTURE-DENSITY RELATIONSHIP TEST
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING. INC. Fig. No. 6
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
%GRAVEL %SAND SUJ iCLAY uscs MSHTO PL
0.0 77.0 16.9 6.1 SM A-2-40
NP NP
SIEVE
Idius
ss
PERCENT FINER SIEVE
nuntur
PERCENT FINER 0-DESCRIPTiON
SaS silty gratown
1.5
3/4
1/2
3/8
100.0
100.0
100.0
1010
100.0
100.0
100.0
10
20
4060
100
200
100.0
99.9
99A
946
78.1
46.9
23.0
GRAiN REMARKS
OTfldByiHD50
Dao
D10
0.185
0.102
0.0260
COEFFICIENTS
C0 2.16
7.12
Source Sample No C3-TS2
jean nSHJtCopcnfion
WESTERN COLORADO TESTING INC Prced Soil Sample Testing
IPruleetNo 804899 Fn 37
LU
I-
LU
LU
PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT
Ji i Ji Ji Ji s g Ji I:! .. ..
100
90
80
70
0::
Weo z u:::
1-50 z w 0 ffi«> ll..
30
20
10
0
200 100
%+3" %GRAVEL
0 0.0
SIEVE
~
lizlt
PERCENT FINER
3
2
1.5
l
3/4
1/2
318
0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
>< GRAIN SIZE
Deo 0.185
D3Q 0.102
010 0.0260 >< COEFFICIENTS
Cc 2.16
Cu 7.12
0 Soume:
Ji z
10
%SAND
77.0
SIEVE
~
lizlt
#4
110 120
#40
160 1100 1200
'\' i ; i i j i
1 0.1
GRAIN SIZE-mm
%SILT %CLAY
16.9
0
100.0
99.9
99:0
94.6
78.1
46.9
23.0
6.1
PERCENT FINER
,...,
Sample No.: C3-TS2
0.01 0.001
uses AASHTO PL ll
SM A-2-4(-G) NP NP
SOIL DESCRIPTION
0 Sad. silty, gr&y/1lrown
REMARKS:
0 TeiiDd By. JH
'Clint lDklmatiooal-uranium Corpondion
~ Soil Sample T-'""'"' WESTERN COLORADO TESTING. INC. ro_... -
PRiillct No.: 804899 37

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT A.2
ADVANCED TERRA TESTING, INC.
2010
MOISTURE CONTENT
ASTMD2216
Moisture Content Determinations
ASTM D 2216
CLIENT: MWH
LOCATION: Denison White Mesa Project
Page 1 of 2
BORING Stockpile 1
SAMPLE DEPTH 5.0'
SAMPLE NO. A South
DATE SAMPLED 10/12/10
DATE TESTED 10/23/10 LB
SOIL DESCRIPTION 1009740
MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS
Wt. of Wet Soil & Dish (gms) 168.75
Wt. of Dry Soil & Dish (gms) 161.67
Net Loss of Moisture (gms) 7.08
Wt. of Dish (gms) 3.04
Wt. of Dry Soil (gms) 158.63
Moisture Content(%) 4.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
BORING
SAMPLE DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS
Wt. of Wet Soil & Dish (gms)
Wt. of Dry Soil & Dish (gms)
Net Loss of Moisture (gms)
Wt. of Dish (gms)
Wt. of Dry Soil (gms)
Moisture Content(%)
Data entered by:
Data checked by:J2/!!!J
FileName:
Stockpile 4
5.0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
124.09
108.90
15.19
3.14
105.76
14.4
BKL Date:
Date: /~WtJ
MHN053 A
Stockpile 1
12.0'
B South
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
189.58
179.59
9.99
3.16
176.43
5.7
Stockpile 5
6.0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
129.19
122.37
6.82
3.07
119.30
5.7
JOB NO.: 2521-53
Stockpile 2 Stockpile 3
5.0' 6.0'
A A
10/12/10 10/12/10
10/23/10 LB 10/23/10 LB
1009740 1009740
140.80 159.75
129.88 146.78
10.92 12.97
3.08 3.02
126.80 143.76
8.6 9.0
Stockpile 6 Stockpile 7
2.0' 0
A A
10/12/10 10/12/10
10/23/10 LB 10/23/10 LB
1009740 1009740
176.52 135.98
164.58 130.35
11.94 5.63
3.30 3.04
161.28 127.31
7.4 4.4
Moisture Content Determinations
ASTM D 2216
CLIENT: MWH
LOCATION: Denison White Mesa Project
Page 2 of2
BORING
SAMPLE DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS
Wt. of Wet Soil & Dish (gms)
Wt. of Dry Soil & Dish (gms)
Net Loss of Moisture (gms)
Wt. of Dish (gms)
Wt. of Dry Soil (gms)
Moisture Content(%)
BORING
SAMPLE DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
SOIL DESCRIPTION
MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS
Wt. of Wet Soil & Dish (gms)
Wt. of Dry Soil & Dish (gms)
Net Loss of Moisture (gms)
Wt. of Dish (gms)
Wt. of Dry Soil (gms)
Moisture Content(%)
Data entered by:
Data checked by: #/ ~
FileName:
Stockpile 8
5.0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
151.72
139.81
11.91
3.04
136.77
8.7
Stockpile 12
5.0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
138.36
127.42
10.94
3.11
124.31
8.8
BKL Date:
Date: 1 eJ (U/tu
MHN053AB
Stockpile 9
0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
156.77
151.93
4.84
3.04
148.89
3.3
Stockpile 13
0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
155.25
143.36
11.89
3.28
140.08
8.5
JOB NO.: 2512-53
Stockpile 10
5.0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
120.43
114.57
5.86
3.11
111.46
5.3
Stockpile 11
0'
A
10/12/10
10/23/10 LB
1009740
161.56
154.98
6.58
3.29
151.69
4.3
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST
ASTMD854
SPECIFIC GRAVITY TESTS ASTM D 854
CLIENT: MWH
SOIL DESCR. 1009740
BORING NO. Stockpile 8
DEPTH 5.0'
SAMPLE NO. A
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED 11/17/10 MLM
Pycnometer#
Big 1
Weight of oven dry soil 108.770
(g) (Wo)
Weight of flask, soil, 739.740
and water. (g) (Wb)
Temperature (deg. C) 25.3
(Tx)
Weight of water & flask 671.632
at Tx (from cal. curve)(Wa)
Specific Gravity* 2.67
*Specific Gravity= Wo/[Wo+(Wa-Wb)]
Data entry by: MLM
Data checked by: fY<c_
FileName: MHEOS814
Date:
Date: 11/f/;o I
JOB NO. 2512-53
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Stockpile 1 Stockpile 4
5.0' 5.0'
A-South A
11/17/10 MLM 11/17/10 MLM
Big 9 Big 10
105.460 91.720
740.170 730.080
25.3 25.4
674.591 671.815
2.64 2.74
11/18/2010
ATTERBERG LIMITS
ASTMD 4318
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM p 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 1
5.0'
A South
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
NON-PLASTIC
Liquid Limit
Determination
Device Number 1075
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish NON-PLASTIC
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit NP
Plastic Limit NP
Plasticity Index NP
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: Li;
FileName:
NP
MLM Date: 11/08/2010
Date: 1-... 04-1 D
MHGOS15A
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
10/12/10--
11/08/10 MLM
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT MWH
Stockpile 1
12.0'
B South
1009740
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
1
12.25
11.15
1.10
1.14
10.01
10.99
Liquid Limit Device Number 1075
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: llKL
FileName:
23.3
11.2
12.1
1
33
12.90
10.77
2.13
1.12
9.65
22.07
CL
MLM Date:
Date:
MHGOS1BS
2 3
12.02 11.89
10.92 10.80
1.10 1.09
1.14 1.14
9.78 9.66
11.25 11.28
2 3
29 25
11.80 12.19
9.83 10.09
1.97 2.10
1.15 1.13
8.68 8.96
22.70 23.44
11/09/2010
ltfq /to ~~
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
21
11.65
9.63
2.02
1.16
8.47
23.85
5
19
12.34
10.15
2.19
1.14
9.01
24.31
10/12/10
11/08/10 MLM
25
24
'E Q) -c 0 ()
~ 23
:::7 -.!a 0 2
22
21
80
60
/
/ II.
20
./
/ CL-ML .,.,.
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 1, 12.0', B South
IIIII\
I\~
"' ~
~
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 1, 12.0', B South
/
/
/ lJH or UH
/ / /
/ / v ~~
\"'\_;
CL or PL /v v MHc rOH
/
/ M orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I& Classification I
'\
'\ 1\
v
100
/
/ /
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT MWH
Stockpile 2
5.0'
A
1009740
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
1
10.04
8.91
1.13
1.14
7.77
14.54
Liquid Limit
Determination
Device Number 1080
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: I¢IIL_
FileName:
30.3
14.4
15.9
30
11.02
8.77
2.25
1.14
7.63
29.49
CL
MLM Date:
Date:
MHG0250A
2
11.59
10.25
1.34
1.15
9.10
14.73
2
25
10.83
8.59
2.24
1.14
7.45
30.07
3
3
11.84
10.53
1.31
1.15
9.38
13.97
23
10.45
8.25
2.20
1.13
7.12
30.90
10/28/2010 IPJ;z8po
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
21
10.66
8.41
2.25
1.16
7.25
31.03
5
16
11.50
8.98
2.52
1.15
7.83
32.18
10/12/10
10/27/10 MLM
33
32
-c Q) -c 0 (.) 31 Q) ..... ::l ~ 0
::::2:
30
29
80
60
/
/ 20
/
/ Cl-Ml ..........
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 2, 5.0', A
~
1\
\
\ II
~
\ If\
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
/
/
CL or )L
/
~/ v
./ M orOL
40
Stockpile 2, 5.0', A
/
/
v v
60
Liquid Limit
/
vn or r--'t1
/ v
/ ~~ l>"v
MHc rOH
80
I &. Classification I
1\ -
/
100
/
/ v
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 3
6.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
1 2 3
10.49 10.76
9.36 9.55
1.13 1.21
1.13 1.14
8.23 8.41
13.73 14.39
10.76
9.53
1.23
1.15
8.38
14.68
Liquid Limit Device Number 0860
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: B.t<L.
FileName:
33.2
14.3
18.9
35
14.74
11.45
3.29
1.16
10.29
31.97
CL
MLM Date:
Date:
MHG0360A
2 3
16 25
15.36 14.95
11.70 11.53
3.66 3.42
1.17 1.16
10.53 10.37
34.76 32.98
10/28/2010
/0 /;).8/t.o
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
20
17.60
13.41
4.19
1.13
12.28
34.12
10/12/10
10/27/10 PW
-c: $ c: 0 ()
35
34
(]) 33 '-::::1 ~ 0 :2
32
31
80
60
20
0
0
/
/
./
/ CL-ML ...,..,.....
/
20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 3, 6.0', A
~~
~~-~
~
~~
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 3, 6.0', A
/
/
/ GH or f.JH
/ / /
/ / v ,~~ 1>-'v
CL or DL v /
.A v MHc rOH
/
/ Ml orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I A Classification I
I~
""' ~
/ v
100
/
/
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 4
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
1 2 3
10.11 10.31
8.88 9.06
1.23 1.25
1.14 1.16
7.74 7.90
15.89 15.82
10.26
9.02
1.24
1.14
7.88
15.74
Liquid Limit Device Number 0860
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: IY<L
FileName:
40.2
15.8
24.4
1 2 3
35 30 26
16.36 18.13 17.07
12.18 13.37 12.48
4.18 4.76 4.59
1.14 1.15 1.15
11.04 12.22 11.33
37.86 38.95 40.51
CL
Date: / ,J 11/04/2010
Date: II L/ t..f o
MHGOS45A 1 '
MLM
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
20
16.99
12.31
4.68
1.14
11.17
41.90
5
15
15.30
11.04
4.26
1.15
9.89
43.07
10/12/10
11/03/10 PW
44
43
42
-c .$ 41 c 0 ()
~ ::J 1i) 40 '(5
:2
39
38
37
80
60
/
/ 20
/
/ CL-ML ...,.
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 4, 5.0', A
·"" I~
i~l
~ ~ ""
""' ~
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 4, 5.0', A
/
/ v \.A1 or UM
v / / v / v ~~ ~v
CL or DL // l
/ / MHc rOH
/ Ml orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I &. Classification I
I~
""' "" Ill
/
/
100
/ v
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT MWH
Stockpile 5
6.0'
A
1009740
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
1
9.49
8.31
1.18
1.14
7.17
16.46
Liquid Limit Device Number 1080
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: /Jk.L
FileName:
26.2
16.3
9.9
35
11.37
9.28
2.09
1.12
8.16
25.61
CL
MLM Date:
Date:
MHG0560A
2
11.27
9.85
1.42
1.14
8.71
16.30
2
22
10.88
8.84
2.04
1.11
7.73
26.39
3
3
9.56
8.39
1.17
1.13
7.26
16.12
25
10.57
8.62
1.95
1.15
7.47
26.10
10/28/2010
ICJ,/&1 f//'c)
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
29
10.50
8.57
1.93
1.12
7.45
25.91
5
30
11.34
9.23
2.11
1.07
8.16
25.86
10/12/10
10/27/10 MLM
'E 2 c 0 ()
27
~ 26
~ ·a
:2
25
80
60
~ 'C .E
~ 40
~ ro 0::
20
0
0
/
/
/ -/ CL-ML ...,....
/
20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 5, 6.0', A
~
~
~~
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 5, 6.0', A
/
/
/ vM or VM
/ / /
/ / v,~<,;,.
1>-'v
CL or PL v / v MHc rOH
/
/ M orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
[ A Classification I
' ~~
/ v
100
/
/
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 6
2.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
2
7.04 7.01
6.40 6.39
0.64 0.62
1.15 1.12
5.25 5.27
12.19 11.76
Liquid Limit Device Number 1075
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: ed....--
FileName:
23.0
12.0
11.0
2 3
25 16 27
16.70 21.03 20.01
13.80 16.91 16.54
2.90 4.12 3.47
1.14 1.14 1.13
12.66 15.77 15.41
22.91 26.13 22.52
CL
LB Date: 11/04/2010
Date: ,J,<I/t(j
MHGOCKP6 '
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED 11/03/10 LB
27
26
-c: 25 Q) -c: 0 u
Q) '-::::J ~ 24 0
:2:
23
22
80
60
/
/ A
20
/
./ CL-ML ....,..
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 6, 2.0', A
~
\
\
1\
\ ml\_
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 6, 2.0', A
/
/
/ vM or UM
/ / /
/ / / \~y, ~><"'
CL or PL // v MHc rOH
/
/ M orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
f A Classification I
/
/ / v
100 120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 7
0.0
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
2
7.12 7.12
6.46 6.47
0.66 0.65
1.16 1.16
5.30 5.31
12.45 12.24
Liquid Limit Device Number 1075
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by: 1 4...
Checked by:_L.-_v_
FileName:
25.9
12.3
13.5
2 3
15 18 24
10.39 10.65 10.74
8.36 8.60 8.74
2.03 2.05 2.00
1.14 1.11 1.12
7.22 7.49 7.62
28.12 27.37 26.25
CL
MLM Date: 11/08/2010
Date: ll-o4-\O
MHGOS70A
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
32
10.21
8.42
1.79
1.15
7.27
24.62
10/12/10
11/05/10 BKL
29
28
-c: 27 2 c: 0 ()
~ ::l ]2 26 0
2
25
24
80
60
/
/ A
20
./' CL-Ml ...,..,..
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 7, 0.0, A
." ~
~ I~
~
~
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 7, 0.0, A
/
/
/ vM or f.JM
/ / v
/ / /~<:,.
l>"v
CL or )L / /
/ MHc rOH
/
/ M orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I A Classification I
'\ ~ •
/
/ /
v
100 120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT MWH
Stockpile 8
5.0'
A
1009740
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
8.47
7.74
0.73
1.15
6.59
11.08
Liquid Limit Device Number 1080
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: {$KL
FileName:
28.0
10.6
17.3
16
10.61
8.49
2.12
1.11
7.38
28.73
CL
MLM Date:
Date:
MHGOS850
2
8.40
7.73
0.67
1.14
6.59
10.17
2
22
9.91
7.97
1.94
1.12
6.85
28.32
3
3
8.40
7.70
0.70
1.15
6.55
10.69
29
7.88
6.41
1.47
1.11
5.30
27.74
11/09/2010
119/10
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
35
13.93
11.20
2.73
1.16
10.04
27.19
10/12/10
11/08/10 TMR
-c $ c 0 ()
29
~ 28
~ 0 :2:
27
80
60
20
0 L
0
/
/ A
/
/ CL-ML .........
20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 8, 5.0', A
~
"' '\
~
~ I~
11!111
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 8, 5.0', A
v
/ v \,;H or UH
/ / /
/ / v ,~~ \"''V
CL or DL v /
/ MHc rOH
/
/ Ml orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I A Classification I
~
I~
I
~ v
100
/ v
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 9
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
2 3
10.28 10.65
8.97 9.31
1.31 1.34
1.14 1.13
7.83 8.18
16.73 16.38
12.42
10.83
1.59
1.14
9.69
16.41
Liquid Limit Device Number 1080
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: lbKL-
FileName:
23.1
16.5
6.6
1 2 3
33 30 18
12.52 11.80 11.75
10.50 9.87 9.64
2.02 1.93 2.11
1.16 1.14 1.12
9.34 8.73 8.52
21.63 22.11 24.77
CL-ML
Date: ,) 0/28/2010
Date: Jo!J.~o
MHG090A '
MLM
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
20
10.46
8.63
1.83
1.14
7.49
24.43
10/12/10
10/27/10 MLM
26
25
-c 24 Q) -c 0 0
~ ::::l ~ 23 0 :::;:
22
21
80
60
/
/ 20
/
~ CL·ML -..........
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 9, 0.0', A
~\
Ill
\
\
\
\
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 9, 0.0', A
/
/ v vM or ~t1
/ / /
L / /,~<c.
\>"'V
CL or )L //
/ MHc rOH v
/ M orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I Jt.. Classification I
I\\
!'-
v
100
/
/ v
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 1 0
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
1 2 3
11.61 12.10
10.05 10.40
1.56 1.70
1.15 1.08
8.90 9.32
17.53 18.24
11.57
9.95
1.62
1.06
8.89
18.17
Liquid Limit Device Number 0860
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: @!;
FileName:
21.9
18.0
3.9
1 2 3
34 20 25
14.92 15.72 17.87
12.64 12.93 14.89
2.28 2.79 2.99
1.15 1.15 1.07
11.49 11.78 13.82
19.85 23.68 21.61
ML
MLM Date: lc 10/29/2010
Date: /C> .:l.Pt !;o
MHG0105A 1 1
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
10/12/10
10/28/10 PW
24
23
-c ~ 22
0 {)
~ ~ '(5 21 ::2:
20
19
80
60
~ 'C .E
~ 40 u ~ I'll a:
20
0 /
0
/
/
/
/ CL-ML ./'
20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 10, 5.0', A
• 1\
1\
\
~~
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 10, 5.0', A
/
/
/ vM or UM
/ / v
/ v v ~<;-~v
CL or PL /v
/ MHc rOH
/
/ ML orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I A Classification I
\
\
\
\
/
100
/
/ /:
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 11
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
2 3
11.41 13.44
9.95 11.71
1.46 1.73
1.14 1.12
8.81 10.59
16.57 16.34
12.03
10.55
1.48
1.15
9.40
15.74
Liquid Limit Device Number 1080
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: ~b
FileName:
20.9
16.2
4.7
1 2 3
33 29 23
16.83 14.89 14.74
14.22 12.55 12.37
2.61 2.34 2.37
1.14 1.14 1.15
13.08 11.41 11.22
19.95 20.51 21.12
CL-ML
MLM Date: 11/08/2010
Date: ll .. Oj -t1>
MHGOS11A
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
21
14.62
12.26
2.36
1.15
11.11
21.24
5
16
14.29
11.88
2.41
1.15
10.73
22.46
10/12/10
11/05/10 MLM
23
22
-c Q) -c 0 () 21 ~ :::s ~ 0 :2:
20
19
80
60
v v 20
/
/' CL-ML ./'
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 11, 0.0', A
1111
~
~
I" ~ ~ ·~
"'
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 11, 0.0', A
v v v \.,;H or f-JH
v / v v / / ,~~ \>"'V
CL or )L v v MHc rOH
/
/ M orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I Jr. Classification I
1\ I-
v
100
/
/ v
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 12
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
1 2
13.07 15.00
11.56 13.25
1.51 1.75
1.13 1.12
10.43 12.13
14.48 14.43
Liquid Limit Device Number 1080
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: BkL..
FileName:
32.1
14.5
17.6
2 3
35 31 25
10.60 10.67 10.86
8.40 8.41 8.51
2.20 2.26 2.35
1.15 1.13 1.15
7.25 7.28 7.36
30.34 31.04 31.93
CL
MLM Date: 10/28/2010
Date: /D/;;<8/4>
MHG01250 I
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
4
23
10.85
8.48
2.37
1.16
7.32
32.38
5
21
9.88
7.71
2.17
1.16
6.55
33.13
10/12/10
10/27/10 MLM
34
33
-c Q) -c 0 ()
Q) 32 .... ::s ~ 0 :::2:
31
30
80
60
v v 20
/ , Cl·Ml ...,...
0 /
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 12, 5.0', A
1111
\
1\ !•\ II\
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 12, 5.0', A
/
/ v IJH or UH
~ / /
/ / v ~~ t>"'V
CL or )L //
JJ. / MHc rOH
/
./' M orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I JJ. Classification I
1\
1\
'I
/
/
100
/
/
120
ATTERBERG LIMITS TEST
ASTM D 4318
CLIENT
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Plastic Limit
Determination
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
MWH
Stockpile 13
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
2 3
10.58 11.06
9.48 9.93
1.10 1.13
1.12 1.14
8.36 8.79
13.16 12.86
10.25
9.18
1.07
1.12
8.06
13.28
Liquid Limit Device Number 1080
Determination
Number of Blows
Wt Dish & Wet Soil
Wt Dish & Dry Soil
Wt of Moisture
Wt of Dish
Wt of Dry Soil
Moisture Content
Liquid Limit
Plastic Limit
Plasticity Index
Atterberg Classification
Data entry by:
Checked by: t!d<L.
FileName:
28.1
13.1
15.0
29
11.35
9.20
2.15
1.15
8.05
26.71
CL
MLM Date:
Date:
MHG0130A
2
26
11.77
9.48
2.29
1.16
8.32
27.52
3
17
11.20
8.77
2.43
1.15
7.62
31.89
10/28/2010
Jo,/«1?/k.:J
JOB NO. 2512-53
DATE SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
10/12/10
10/27/10 MLM
33
32
31
c <I> -30 c: 0 (.)
~ :::l 11 29
0 2
28
27
26
80
60
/
/ &.
20
/
~ CL-ML ..,..,...-
0 L
0 20
Atterberg Limits, Flow Curve
Stockpile 13, 0.0', A
' 1\
1\
\
\
\
~
Number of Blows 25
PLASTICITY CHART
Stockpile 13, 0.0', A
v
/
/ \,;H or UH
/ /
/
/ / v ,~~ ~'-""
CL or ~L v /
/ MHc rOH
/ / Ml orOL
40 60
Liquid Limit
80
I &. Classification I
\
11t1
v
100
/
/ /
120
MECllANICAL ANALYSIS
WITH HYDROMETER
ASTM D 422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM 0422
Stockpile 1
5.0'
A South
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10 --
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE OAT A WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 6.84
#4 0.00 3.97
#10 0.00 7.86
#20 1.76 4.38
#40 1.79 13.48
#60 1.74 25.97
#100 1.77 11.13
#200 1.77 6.76
Data entered by: ~ MLM
Data checked by:.__._~=-­
FileName: MHHYS1AS
112.71
111.29
1.42
3.23
108.06
1.3
69.24
68.34
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
6.84 6.84
3.97 10.81
7.86 18.67
2.62 2.62
11.69 14.31
24.23 38.54
9.36 47.90
4.99 52.89
Date: ,/.,/,;1/04/2010 Date:~
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 2215.88
Weight of + #1 0
Before Washing (g) 20.38
Weight of + #1 0
After Washing (g) 18.67
Weight of-#1 0
Wet(g) 2195.50
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 2168.71
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 2187.38
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 68.93
Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.59
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. ByWt.
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.3 99.7
0.5 99.5
0.9 99.1
4.7 95.3
21.6 78.4
56.8 43.2
70.3 29.7
77.6 22.4
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D 422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer #
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 1
5.0'
A South
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.5
0.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 20.00 15.00
1.0 18.00 13.00
2.0 17.50 12.50
5.0 16.50 11.50
15.0 15.50 10.50
30.0 14.50 9.50
60.0 13.50 8.50
120.0 13.00 8.00
250.0 12.00 7.00
1440.0 10.50 5.50
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: __
FileName: MHHYS1AS
Total
100Ra/W Sample
21.8 21.8
18.9 18.9
18.1 18.1
16.7 16.7
15.2 15.2
13.8 13.8
12.3 12.3
11.6 11.6
10.2 10.2
8.0 8.0
Date: 11/04/2010
Date: __ _
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
13.01 0.0671
13.34 0.0480
13.42 0.0341
13.58 0.0217
13.75 0.0126
13.91 0.0090
14.08 0.0064
14.16 0.0045
14.32 0.0031
14.57 0.0013
10/12/10 --
1 0/26/1 0 DPM
Yes
No
23.1
0.01315
68.930
100.0
100
80
:;::
oof
C) ~ >. -" a; c u::
"E Q) e Q) "-40
20
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client: MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5' 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #50 #1 00 #200
\ --II• TestData(mm)
0.0671
--b_15l9s'b1o21b 0126
· O.Oo9g,.,,
045 V.O ·.D031-
0.0013
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE uses
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
COARSE I MED I FINE \GRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
WEN1WORTH
Boring No.: Stockpile 1 Sample No.: A South
Depth: 5.0'
Classification Not Performed
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 1
12.0'
B South
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10--
1 0/26/1 0 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 177.82
3/4" 0.00 165.87
3/8" 0.00 2.41
#4 0.00 1.85
#10 0.00 7.18
#20 1.78 2.64
#40 1.83 6.50
#60 1.78 15.80
#100 1.78 9.73
#200 1.74 9.87
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: ~
FileName: MHHYS112
104.78
102.31
2.47
3.07
99.24
2.5
63.26
61.72
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
177.82 177.82
165.87 343.69
2.41 346.10
1.85 347.95
7.18 355.13
0.86 0.86
4.67 5.53
14.02 19.55
7.95 27.50
8.13 35.63
Date: nf,,/.~1/04/2010 Date:~
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 2715.20
Weight of + #1 0
Before Washing (g) 373.00
Weight of + #1 0
After Washing (g) 355.13
Weight of-#1 0
Wet (g) 2342.20
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 2302.76
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 2657.89
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 71.24
Calc. Mass + #1 0 9.52
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. ByWt.
0.0 100.0
6.7 93.3
12.9 87.1
13.0 87.0
13.1 86.9
13.4 86.6
14.6 85.4
21.1 78.9
40.8 59.2
52.0 48.0
63.4 36.6
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer#
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 1
12.0'
B South
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.5
0.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected Total
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5
1.0 27.50 22.50
2.0 25.50 20.50
5.0 23.00 18.00
15.0 21.50 16.50
30.0 20.00 15.00
60.0 19.00 14.00
120.0 18.00 13.00
250.0 16.50 11.50
1440.0 14.00 9.00
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: __
FileName: MHHYS112
100Ra/W Sample
31.6 31.6
28.8 28.8
25.3 25.3
23.2 23.2
21.1 21.1
19.7 19.7
18.2 18.2
16.1 16.1
12.6 12.6
Date: 11/04/2010
Date: __ _
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
11.78 0.0451
12.11 0.0324
12.52 0.0208
12.76 0.0121
13.01 0.0087
13.17 0.0062
13.34 0.0044
13.58 0.0031
13.99 0.0013
10/12/10 --
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
23.1
0.01315
71.241
100.0
100
80
:E .2' 60
~ ~
" .£ u... c " 2 " 40 n.
20
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client: MWH
Job Number: 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #SO #1 00 #200
I
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM
I
FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
Boring No.: Stockpile 1
Depth: 12.0'
Classification Not Performed
0.0451
0.0324
0.0208
SILT
0.0121
O.OiJ¥b062-·· . 0.0044
0.0031
SILT OR CLAY (mm)
Sample No.: B South
• Test Data (mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 2
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10 --
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.99
#10 0.00 1.53
#20 1.79 2.37
#40 1.74 2.41
#60 1.77 3.27
#100 1.76 4.29
#200 1.78 20.51
Data entered by: IDJ ~LM
Data checked by:.___:_....--.:!.,__
FileName: MHHYS25A
1 01.41
97.96
3.45
3.14
94.82
3.6
60.53
58.40
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.99 0.99
1.53 2.52
0.58 0.58
0.67 1.25
1.50 2.75
2.53 5.28
18.73 24.01
Date: ,,/uL.11/04/2010 Date:~
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 1717.36
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 2.66
Weight of + #1 0
After Washing (g) 2.52
Weight of -#1 0
Wet (g) 1714.70
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 1654.64
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 1657.16
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 58.49
Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.09
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. By Wt.
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.1 99.9
0.2 99.8
1.1 98.9
2.3 97.7
4.9 95.1
9.2 90.8
41.2 58.8
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D 422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer #
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 2
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.5
0.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected Total
(min) "RII
0.0
0.5
1.0 29.00 24.00
2.0 26.00 21.00
5.0 23.00 18.00
15.0 21.00 16.00
30.0 20.50 15.50
60.0 19.00 14.00
120.0 19.00 14.00
250.0 18.00 13.00
1451.0 15.50 10.50
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: ~ MLM
Data checked by:_;~~­
FileName: MHHYS25A
100Ra!W Sample
41.0 41.0
35.9 35.9
30.8 30.8
27.4 27.4
26.5 26.5
23.9 23.9
23.9 23.9
22.2 22.2
18.0 18.0
Date: ,L/.11/04/2010 Date:~
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
%of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
11.53 0.0446
12.03 0.0322
12.52 0.0208
12.85 0.0121
12.93 0.0086
13.17 0.0061
13.17 0.0043
13.34 0.0030
13.75 0.0013
10/12/10 --
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
23.3
0.01312
58.489
100.0
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1 00 #200
100m~
80 1-1
E "' 60
~
~
~ " c: u:: c "' e "' 40 0..
20 1-1
0
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client: MWH
Job Number: 2512-53
Classification:
I
I I
I l
I
\
I j \·9::~:
0.0208
~01f.ilo86
"e 0.0013
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM
I
FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT
I
CLAY
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
Boring No.: Stockpile 2 Sample No.: A
Depth: 5.0'
Classification Not Performed
II• Test Data (mm)
uses
WENTWORTH
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 3
6.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10 --
1 0/26/1 0 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00
3/4" 0.00
3/8" 0.00
#4 0.00
#10 0.00
#20 1.77
#40 1.77
#60 1.81
#100 1.73
#200 1.78
Data entered by: J .. MLM
Data checked by:~
FileName: MHHYS36A
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
1.30
2.20
2.58
4.70
9.08
11.67
83.64
80.02
3.62
2.99
77.03
4.7
63.20
60.36
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.73 0.73
1.30 2.03
0.43 0.43
0.81 1.24
2.89 4.13
7.35 11.48
9.89 21.37
Date: 11j,J!,,~ 1/04/2010
Date:-4r
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 2309.30
Weight of + #1 0
Before Washing (g) 2.80
Weight of+ #1 0
After Washing (g) 2.03
Weight of-#1 0
Wet (g) 2306.50
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 2203.71
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 2205.74
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 60.42
Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.06
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. ByWt.
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.1 99.9
0.8 99.2
2.1 97.9
6.9 93.1
19.1 80.9
35.5 64.5
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO. Stockpile 3
DEPTH 6.0'
SAMPLE NO. A
SOIL DESCR. 1009740
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Hydrometer # ASTM 152 H
Sp. Gr. of Soil 2.65
Value of "alpha" 1.00
Deflocculant Sodium Hexametaphosphate
Defloc. Corr'n 5.5
Meniscus Corr'n 0.5
T
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 41.00 36.00
1.0 38.00 33.00
2.0 36.00 31.00
5.0 33.50 28.50
15.0 31.00 26.00
30.0 30.00 25.00
60.0 28.00 23.00
120.0 26.00 21.00
250.0 23.50 18.50
1440.0 19.00 14.00
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(LIT))
Data entered by: 110 MLM
Data checked by:__._~.__
FileName: MHHYS36A
%
Total
100Ra!W Sample
59.6 59.6
54.6 54.6
51.3 51.3
47.2 47.2
43.0 43.0
41.4 41.4
38.1 38.1
34.8 34.8
30.6 30.6
23.2 23.2
Date: u/.J._, 11/04/2010 Date:~
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
9.57 0.0576
10.06 0.0418
10.39 0.0300
10.80 0.0194
11.21 0.0114
11.37 0.0081
11.70 0.0058
12.03 0.0042
12.44 0.0029
13.17 0.0013
10/12/10 --
1 0/26/1 0 DPM
Yes
No
23.0
0.01317
60.420
100.0
100
80
:E 60 ~
~
~ Q) ~ c Q) e Q) 40 a.
20
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client: MWH
Job Number: 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
i
I
_l
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED
Boring No.: Stockpile 3
Depth: 6.0'
Classification Not Performed
#200
Grain Size
I FINE
0.0576
0.0418
0.0300
0.0194
0.0114 0.0081
0.0058
0.0042
.0.0029.
SILT OR CLAY (mm)
SILT
I
Sample No.: A
• Test Data (mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
---
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 4
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.95
#10 0.00 0.81
#20 3.06 3.44
#40 3.02 4.36
#60 3.11 5.57
#100 3.05 5.21
#200 2.97 6.74
Data entered by: .Jn MLM
Data checked by::-:-'M'--=:(....-
FileName: MHHY450A
103.65
97.39
6.26
3.14
94.25
6.6
60.83
57.04
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.95 0.95
0.81 1.76
0.38 0.38
1.34 1.72
2.46 4.18
2.16 6.34
3.77 10.11
Date: , 1.1. ,, 10/29/2010
Date:~
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 1447.32
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 2.12
Weight of+ #1 0
After Washing (g) 1.76
Weight of-#1 0
Wet (g) 1445.20
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 1355.53
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 1357.29
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 57.12
Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.07
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. ByWt.
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.1 99.9
0.1 99.9
0.8 99.2
3.1 96.9
7.4 92.6
11.2 88.8
17.8 82.2
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO. Stockpile 4
DEPTH 5.0'
SAMPLE NO. A
SOIL DESCR. 1009740
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Hydrometer# ASTM 152 H
Sp. Gr. of Soil 2.65
Value of "alpha" 1.00
Deflocculant Sodium Hexametaphosphate
Defloc. Corr'n 5.5
Meniscus Corr'n 0.5
T
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 50.00 45.00
1.0 46.00 41.00
2.0 44.00 39.00
5.0 41.00 36.00
15.0 38.00 33.00
30.0 36.00 31.00
60.0 34.50 29.50
120.0 31.00 26.00
250.0 29.00 24.00
1440.0 19.00 14.00
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: 1/i<
FileName: MHHY450A
Total
100Ra!W Sample
78.8 78.8
71.8 71.8
68.3 68.3
63.0 63.0
57.8 57.8
54.3 54.3
51.6 51.6
45.5 45.5
42.0 42.0
24.5 24.5
Date: 11 1.1 ..... 10/29/2010
Date:J4i.pQ-
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
8.09 0.0530
8.75 0.0389
9.07 0.0281
9.57 0.0182
10.06 0.0108
10.39 0.0077
10.63 0.0055
11.21 0.0040
11.53 0.0028
13.17 0.0013
10/12/10
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
23.0
0.01317
57.118
100.0
100
80
:E 60 "' ~ >. .c :;; £ u.. c " f:: " 40 0..
20
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5' 3/4" 3/8' #4 #10 #20 #40 1#30 #1 00 #200
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
Boring No.: Stockpile 4
Depth: 5.0'
Classification Not Performed
0.0530
0.0389
0.0281
0.0182
SILT
0.0108
0.0077
0.0055
0.0040
0.0028
SILT OR CLAY (mm)
Sample No.: A
• Test Data (mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 5
6.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.00
#10 0.00 0.00
#20 3.03 3.06
#40 3.00 3.15
#60 3.08 3.71
#100 2.99 4.29
#200 3.13 20.58
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: 1$/Lt--
FileName: MHHYS66A
Wt. Total Sample
Wet(g) 66.35
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 0.00
Weight of+ #1 0
262.62 After Washing (g) 0.00
256.89 Weight of-#1 0
5.73 Wet (g) 66.35
6.60 Weight of-#1 0
250.29 Dry (g) 64.87
2.3 Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 64.87
66.35 Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 64.87
64.87 Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.00
lndiv. Cum. Cum. %
Wt. Wt. % Finer
Retain. Retain. Retain. ByWt.
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.03 0.03 0.0 100.0
0.15 0.18 0.3 99.7
0.63 0.81 1.2 98.8
1.30 2.11 3.3 96.7
17.45 19.56 30.2 69.8
Date: 11/19/2010
Date: II} I 1{11J
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer#
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 5
6.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.0
-1.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 37.00 30.50
1.0 31.00 24.50
2.0 24.50 18.00
5.0 22.00 15.50
15.0 20.00 13.50
30.0 18.50 12.00
60.0 18.00 11.50
120.0 18.00 11.50
250.0 16.00 9.50
1440.0 15.00 8.50
Grain Diameter = K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: /$ta_
FileName: MHHYS66A
Total
100Ra!W Sample
Date:
Date:
47.0 47.0
37.8 37.8
27.7 27.7
23.9 23.9
20.8 20.8
18.5 18.5
17.7 17.7
17.7 17.7
14.6 14.6
13.1 13.1
I 11t19t2o1 o
11, t ct(to
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
10.22 0.0601
11.21 0.0445
12.27 0.0329
12.68 0.0212
13.01 0.0124
13.26 0.0088
13.34 0.0063
13.34 0.0044
13.67 0.0031
13.83 0.0013
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
22.2
0.01329
64.865
100.0
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5' 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1 00 #200
100 I i • • • m i
' ! '
soH----, ___ , __ \
I
I
.E 60 f
£>
~ 1 ---+ ---! I Q) c: u: c Q) e Q) 40 0.. • 0.0445
0.0329
0.0212
20 1--i ---t-_0.0'12'1
0031
0 I
Grain Size
COBBLES GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
PEBBLE GRAVEL
COARSE I MED I FINE \GRAN COARSE
Boring No.: Stockpile 5
Depth: 6.0'
Classification Not Performed
SAND SILT
I MED I FINE
Sample No.: A
II• Test Data (mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D422
Stockpile 6
2.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.00
#10 0.00 0.00
#20 3.29 3.94
#40 3.04 4.05
#60 3.03 6.51
#100 3.26 14.22
#200 3.21 17.03
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: AILL.
FileName: MHHYS62A
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 65.22
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 0.00
Weight of+ #1 0
383.02 After Washing (g) 0.00
374.28 Weight of-#1 0
8.74 Wet (g) 65.22
6.73 Weight of-#1 0
367.55 Dry (g) 63.71
2.4 Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 63.71
65.22 Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 63.71
63.71 Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.00
lndiv. Cum. Cum. %
Wt. Wt. % Finer
Retain. Retain. Retain. ByWt.
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.65 0.65 1.0 99.0
1.01 1.66 2.6 97.4
3.48 5.14 8.1 91.9
10.96 16.10 25.3 74.7
13.82 29.92 47.0 53.0
Date: 11/18/2010
Date: UIJ9.lto I I
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer #
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 6
2.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.0
-1.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 37.00 30.50
1.0 31.50 25.00
2.0 29.00 22.50
5.0 27.00 20.50
15.0 24.50 18.00
30.0 23.00 16.50
60.0 21.50 15.00
120.0 20.00 13.50
250.0 18.00 11.50
1440.0 16.00 9.50
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: t!#L-
FileName: MHHYS62A
Total
100Ra!W Sample
47.9 47.9
39.2 39.2
35.3 35.3
32.2 32.2
28.3 28.3
25.9 25.9
23.5 23.5
21.2 21.2
18.1 18.1
14.9 14.9
Date: / 11/18/2010
Date: /11 1~/Jo
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% ofTotal Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
10.22 0.0599
11.12 0.0442
11.53 0.0318
11.86 0.0204
12.27 0.0120
12.52 0.0086
12.76 0.0061
13.01 0.0044
13.34 0.0031
13.67 0.0013
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
22.5
0.01325
63.705
100.0
100
I
80 ~~
:E C> 60
~ ~
"' .£ u..
"E "' e "' 40 0..
20 f-'·
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client: MWH
Job Number: 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
I I -, -r
i j j '.
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED
Boring No.: Stockpile 6
Depth: 2.0'
Classification Not Performed
-
Grain Size
I FINE
0.0318
0.0204
0.0120
0.0086
0.0061
0.0044_
0.0031
SILT OR CLAY (mm)
SILT
I -----
Sample No.: A
• Test Data (mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D422
Stockpile 7
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.00
#10 0.00 0.00
#20 3.08 3.53
#40 3.25 3.89
#60 3.08 4.48
#100 3.14 5.55
#200 3.10 21.95
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: 8/:::t...-
FileName: MHHYS70A
Wt. Total Sample
Wet(g) 64.62
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 0.00
Weight of+ #1 0
262.38 After Washing (g) 0.00
257.88 Weight of-#1 0
4.50 Wet (g) 64.62
8.59 Weight of-#1 0
249.29 Dry (g) 63.47
1.8 Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 63.47
64.62 Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 63.47
63.47 Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.00
lndiv. Cum. Cum. %
Wt. Wt. % Finer
Retain. Retain. Retain. ByWt.
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.45 0.45 0.7 99.3
0.64 1.09 1.7 98.3
1.40 2.49 3.9 96.1
2.41 4.90 7.7 92.3
18.85 23.75 37.4 62.6
Date: 11/19/2010
Date: /I I 19flo r .
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D 422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer#
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 7
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.0
-1.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected
(min) "Rn
0.0
0.5 37.00 30.50
1.0 30.50 24.00
2.0 25.50 19.00
5.0 23.00 16.50
15.0 22.00 15.50
30.0 20.00 13.50
60.0 19.50 13.00
120.0 19.00 12.50
250.0 18.50 12.00
1440.0 17.00 10.50
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: m-
FileName: MHHYS70A
Total
100Ra!W Sample
48.1 48.1
37.8 37.8
29.9 29.9
26.0 26.0
24.4 24.4
21.3 21.3
20.5 20.5
19.7 19.7
18.9 18.9
16.5 16.5
Date:~ (1/18/2010
Date: I t \j tO I
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
10.22 0.0600
11.29 0.0446
12.11 0.0326
12.52 0.0210
12.68 0.0122
13.01 0.0087
13.09 0.0062
13.17 0.0044
13.26 0.0031
13.50 0.0013
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
22.4
0.01326
63.474
100.0
US Standard Sieve Size
~-~~··~-==~3/~~===3/~a·===m~===m~o~:~~o;==mo~=~=o~m=oo==~==oo~======================================~ 100 r
80
:E
f 60
ii'
i; .s u..
'E CD e CD 40 "-
20
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
-
Client: MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
• Test Data (mm)
0.0446
-0,0326-
0.0013
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE uses
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT L CLAY
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
---
WENTWORTH
Boring No.: Stockpile 7 Sample No.: A
Depth: 0.0'
Classification Not Performed
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D422
Stockpile 8
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10 --
1 0/26/1 0 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA . WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.69
#10 0.00 13.44
#20 1.77 2.13
#40 1.81 2.30
#60 1.83 4.28
#100 1.77 12.00
#200 1.79 17.51
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: ~
FileName: MHHYS85A
110.10
108.82
1.28
2.99
105.83
1.2
68.19
67.37
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.69 0.69
13.44 14.13
0.36 0.36
0.49 0.85
2.45 3.30
10.23 13.53
15.72 29.25
Date: 11 /u//()11/04/201 0 Date:~
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 2051.90
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 40.60
Weight of+ #1 0
After Washing (g) 14.13
Weight of-#1 0
Wet (g) 2011.30
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 2013.42
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 2027.55
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 67.85
Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.47
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. ByWt.
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.7 99.3
1.2 98.8
1.9 98.1
5.6 94.4
20.6 79.4
43.8 56.2
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer#
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 8
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.5
0.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected Total
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 36.00 31.00
1.0 31.00 26.00
2.0 29.00 24.00
5.0 25.50 20.50
15.0 23.00 18.00
30.0 21.00 16.00
60.0 20.00 15.00
120.0 18.00 13.00
250.0 16.00 11.00
1442.0 12.50 7.50
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: {~
FileName: MHHYS85A
100Ra/W Sample
45.7 45.7
38.3 38.3
35.4 35.4
30.2 30.2
26.5 26.5
23.6 23.6
22.1 22.1
19.2 19.2
16.2 16.2
11.1 11.1
Date: ,,/,1 /,1,~/04/2010 Date:~
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
10.39 0.0598
11.21 0.0439
11.53 0.0315
12.11 0.0204
12.52 0.0120
12.85 0.0086
13.01 0.0061
13.34 0.0044
13.67 0.0031
14.24 0.0013
10/12/10 --
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
23.3
0.01312
67.847
100.0
100
80
:E 60 f
£>
~ " c: u:: c " 2 " 40 "-
20
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client: MWH
Job Number: 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1 00 #200
I
I
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE CRS l MEDIUM I FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED .I FINE
Boring No.: Stockpile 8
Depth: 5.0'
Classification Not Performed
0.0439
0.0315
0.0204
0.0120
0.0086 0.0061
o:oo44·-
o.oos1
SILT OR CLAY (mm)
SILT L
Sample No.: A
• Test Data (mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
-----
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D422
Stockpile 9,
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.00
#10 0.00 0.00
#20 2.99 3.03
#40 3.05 3.09
#60 3.27 3.55
#100 3.04 4.04
#200 3.11 25.90
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: 8kL
FileName: MHHYS90A
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 71.63
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 0.00
Weight of+ #1 0
305.13 After Washing (g) 0.00
299.78 Weight of-#1 0
5.35 Wet (g) 71.63
6.79 Weight of-#1 0
292.99 Dry (g) 70.35
1.8 Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 70.35
71.63 Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 70.35
70.35 Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.00
lndiv. Cum. Cum. %
Wt. Wt. % Finer
Retain. Retain. Retain. ByWt.
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.04 0.04 0.1 99.9
0.04 0.08 0.1 99.9
0.28 0.36 0.5 99.5
1.00 1.36 1.9 98.1
22.79 24.15 34.3 65.7
Date: 11/18/2010
Date: 11/!C)Ito
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D 422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer#
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 9
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.0
-1.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 42.00 35.50
1.0 34.50 28.00
2.0 26.00 19.50
5.0 23.00 16.50
15.0 20.00 13.50
30.0 20.00 13.50
60.0 19.00 12.50
120.0 19.00 12.50
250.0 17.50 11.00
1440.0 15.50 9.00
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: f!.kl-
FileName: MHHYS90A
Total
100Ra!W Sample
50.5 50.5
39.8 39.8
27.7 27.7
23.5 23.5
19.2 19.2
19.2 19.2
17.8 17.8
17.8 17.8
15.6 15.6
12.8 12.8
Date: 11/19/2010
Date: U /1 tt /Jo
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
%of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
9.40 0.0576
10.63 0.0433
12.03 0.0326
12.52 0.0210
13.01 0.0124
13.01 0.0087
13.17 0.0062
13.17 0.0044
13.42 0.0031
13.75 0.0013
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
22.3
0.01328
70.345
100.0
100
80
:E 60 f
£>
" c: u:
"E " [:0
" 40 a_
20
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #1 0 #20 #40 #60 #1 00 #200 • • •
I I
I
I
I 1 ~ -
I
I I
I l
0.0576 • Test Data (mm)
0.0433~
0.0326
0.0210
0.0013
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE uses
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT
I
CLAY
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
WENTWORTH
Boring No.: Stockpile 9 Sample No.: A
Depth: 0.0'
Classification Not Performed
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 1 0
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.00
#10 0.00 0.00
#20 3.04 3.07
#40 3.10 3.21
#60 3.10 3.67
#100 3.07 4.13
#200 3.21 21.12
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: 8'(L
FileName: MHHYS1 OA
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 61.57
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 0.00
Weight of + #1 0
256.44 After Washing (g) 0.00
251.58 Weight of-#1 0
4.86 Wet (g) 61.57
8.35 Weight of-#1 0
243.23 Dry (g) 60.36
2.0 Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 60.36
61.57 Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 60.36
60.36 Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.00
lndiv. Cum. Cum. %
Wt. Wt. % Finer
Retain. Retain. Retain. ByWt.
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.03 0.03 0.0 100.0
0.11 0.14 0.2 99.8
0.57 0.71 1.2 98.8
1.06 1.77 2.9 97.1
17.91 19.68 32.6 67.4
Date: 11/18/2010
Date: lf!I<B(tO
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer#
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 1 0
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.0
-1.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 37.00 30.50
1.0 29.00 22.50
2.0 23.00 16.50
5.0 20.00 13.50
15.0 18.00 11.50
30.0 17.50 11.00
60.0 17.00 10.50
120.0 16.00 9.50
250.0 15.00 8.50
1440.0 14.00 7.50
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: /Jffi-
FileName: MHHYS10A
Total
100Ra/W Sample
50.5 50.5
37.3 37.3
27.3 27.3
22.4 22.4
19.1 19.1
18.2 18.2
17.4 17.4
15.7 15.7
14.1 14.1
12.4 12.4
Date: ,~)1/18/2010
Date:~
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% ofTotal Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
10.22 0.0600
11.53 0.0450
12.52 0.0332
13.01 0.0214
13.34 0.0125
13.42 0.0089
13.50 0.0063
13.67 0.0045
13.83 0.0031
13.99 0.0013
11/15/10 WAR
Yes
No
22.4
0.01326
60.364
100.0
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #1 0 #20 #40 IIllO #1 00 #200
100 _ I
80
:E 60 f
E' ~ Q) .£ u.. c ~ ~ 40
20
0
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client MWH
Job Number: 2512-53
Classification:
I
I
0.0600.
0.0450
0.0332
_ I ___ ... 0.0214
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I_ MEDIUM
I
FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT
I COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
Boring No.: Stockpile 1 0 Sample No.: A
Depth: 5.0'
Classification Not Performed
__ ., • Test Data (mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO ..
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 11
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10
10/26/10 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00
3/4" 0.00
3/8" 0.00
#4 0.00
#10 0.00
#20 2.96
#40 3.08
#60 3.17
#100 3.06
#200 2.99
Data entered by: tt-. MLM
Data checked by: I
FileName: MHHY11 OA
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.89
3.87
1.17
3.19
3.75
7.63
8.85
20.77
103.39
1 01.41
1.98
3.13
98.28
2.0
66.77
65.46
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.89 1.89
3.87 5.76
1.17 6.93
0.23 0.23
0.67 0.90
4.46 5.36
5.80 11.16
17.78 28.93
Date: ,,1.1 .• 1'1 H 10/29/2010 Date:~
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 2472.51
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 7.41
Weight of + #1 0
After Washing (g) 6.93
Weight of-#1 0
Wet (g) 2465.10
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 2416.89
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 2423.82
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 65.64
Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.19
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. ByWt.
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.1 99.9
0.2 99.8
0.3 99.7
0.6 99.4
1.7 98.3
8.5 91.5
17.3 82.7
44.4 55.6
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D 422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO. Stockpile 11
DEPTH 0.0'
SAMPLE NO. A
SOIL DESCR. 1009740
LOCATION Denison White Mesa Mill Project
Hydrometer # ASTM 152 H
Sp. Gr. of Soil 2.65
Value of "alpha" 1.00
Deflocculant Sodium Hexametaphosphate
Defloc. Corr'n 5.5
Meniscus Corr'n 0.5
T
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading
Time Original Corrected
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 33.00 28.00
1.0 27.00 22.00
2.0 23.00 18.00
5.0 20.50 15.50
15.0 19.00 14.00
30.0 18.00 13.00
60.0 17.75 12.75
120.0 17.00 12.00
250.0 16.00 11.00
1440.0 15.00 10.00
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: ~~ MLM
Data checked by: ~
FileName: MHH-Y-411~0'-A-
%
Total
100Ra!W Sample
42.7 42.7
33.5 33.5
27.4 27.4
23.6 23.6
21.3 21.3
19.8 19.8
19.4 19.4
18.3 18.3
16.8 16.8
15.2 15.2
Date: ~~~tilt? 10/29/2010 Date:~
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
10.88 0.0613
11.86 0.0453
12.52 0.0329
12.93 0.0211
13.17 0.0123
13.34 0.0088
13.38 0.0062
13.50 0.0044
13.67 0.0031
13.83 0.0013
10/12/10
1 0/26/1 0 DPM
Yes
No
23.2
0.01314
65.643
100.0
100 I
80 r
:E 60 0> ~
£>
l;; c: u: c " f=' (I) 40 0..
20
0
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
#4 #10 #20 #40 #60 #1 00 #200 • • !
'
I I
1\-II• TestData(mm)
I,. 0.0613
• 0.0453
0.0329
~ 0.0013
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE uses
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
WENTWORTH
Boring No.: Stockpile 11 Sample No.: A
Depth: 0.0'
Classification Not Performed
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 12
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10 --
10/25/10 DPM
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 0.00
#10 0.00 0.33
#20 1.79 2.05
#40 1.83 2.28
#60 1.77 2.33
#100 1.78 3.32
#200 1.78 22.86
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: 11{?--:
FileName: MHHYS12A
95.32
91.82
3.50
3.16
88.66
4.0
61.16
58.84
lndiv. Cum.
Wt. Wt.
Retain. Retain.
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.33 0.33
0.26 0.26
0.45 0.71
0.56 1.27
1.54 2.81
21.08 23.89
Date: 11 fu/~~~111041201 0 Date:~
Wt. Total Sample
Wet (g) 1732.46
Weight of + #1 0
Before Washing (g) 0.36
Weight of + #1 0
After Washing (g) 0.33
Weight of-#1 0
Wet (g) 1732.10
Weight of-#1 0
Dry (g) 1666.29
Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 1666.62
Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 58.85
Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.01
Cum. %
% Finer
Retain. ByWt.
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.0 100.0
0.5 99.5
1.2 98.8
2.2 97.8
4.8 95.2
40.6 59.4
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer#
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 12
5.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.5
0.5
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected Total
(min) "R"
0.0
0.5 33.00 28.00
1.0 28.00 23.00
2.0 26.00 21.00
5.0 24.00 19.00
15.0 22.50 17.50
30.0 21.50 16.50
60.0 20.50 15.50
120.0 20.00 15.00
250.0 19.00 14.00
1440.0 17.00 12.00
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(LIT))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: &-=
FileName: MHHYS12A
100Ra!W Sample
47.6 47.6
39.1 39.1
35.7 35.7
32.3 32.3
29.7 29.7
28.0 28.0
26.3 26.3
25.5 25.5
23.8 23.8
20.4 20.4
Date: 11/ ttl~~~ 1/04/201 0
Date:_!f¥-
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% of Total Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
10.88 0.0613
11.70 0.0449
12.03 0.0322
12.35 0.0207
12.60 0.0120
12.76 0.0086
12.93 0.0061
13.01 0.0043
13.17 0.0030
13.50 0.0013
10/12/10 --
10/25/10 DPM
Yes
No
23.2
0.01314
58.850
100.0
100
80
:E 60 f
1;-
" .5 u..
"E " e " 40 0..
20
0
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client: MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
US Standard Sieve Size
1.5" 3/4" 3/8' #4 #10 #20 #40 #80 #100 #200
GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM I FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND
COARSE I MED I FINE \GRAN COARSE I MED
Boring No.: Stockpile 12
Depth: 5.0'
Classification Not Performed
----
0.0613
Grain Size
I FINE
M449-
0.0322
0.0207
SILT
0;0120-0.0086 0'll'ilo43 0.0030
SILT OR CLAY (mm)
Sample No.: A
• Test Data (mm)
0.0013-
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
MECHANICAL ANALYSIS-SIEVE TEST DATA
ASTM D 422
Stockpile 13
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
10/12/10
11/09/1 0 WAR
Yes
No
MOISTURE DATA WASH SIEVE ANALYSIS
HYGROSCOPIC Yes
NATURAL No
Wt. Wet Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Dry Soil & Pan (g)
Wt. Lost Moisture (g)
Wt. of Pan Only (g)
Wt. of Dry Soil (g)
Moisture Content %
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Wet (g)
Wt. Hydrom. Sample Dry (g)
Sieve Pan lndiv.
Number Weight Wt. +Pan
(Size) (g) (g)
3" 0.00 0.00
1 1/2" 0.00 0.00
3/4" 0.00 0.00
3/8" 0.00 0.00
#4 0.00 2.47
#10 0.00 1.65
#20 3.00 4.45
#40 3.09 4.72
#60 3.08 6.97
#100 3.03 10.05
#200 3.00 14.05
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: (}/d.__..
FileName: MHHYS13A
Wt. Total Sample
Wet(g) 1684.57
Weight of+ #1 0
Before Washing (g) 4.67
Weight of+ #1 0
103.51 After Washing (g) 4.12
99.73 Weight of-#1 0
3.78 Wet (g) 1679.90
3.13 Weight of-#1 0
96.60 Dry (g) 1617.17
3.9 Wt. Total Sample
Dry (g) 1621.29
62.53 Calc. Wt. "W' (g) 60.33
60.18 Calc. Mass + #1 0 0.15
lndiv. Cum. Cum. %
Wt. Wt. % Finer
Retain. Retain. Retain. ByWt.
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
0.00 0.00 0.0 100.0
2.47 2.47 0.2 99.8
1.65 4.12 0.3 99.7
1.45 1.45 2.6 97.4
1.63 3.07 5.3 94.7
3.89 6.96 11.8 88.2
7.02 13.98 23.4 76.6
11.05 25.03 41.7 58.3
Date: 11/12/2010
Date: 11 /;,~/;o I
HYDROMETER ANALYSIS-SEDIMENTATION DATA
ASTM D422
CLIENT MWH
BORING NO.
DEPTH
SAMPLE NO.
SOIL DESCR.
LOCATION
Hydrometer #
Sp. Gr. of Soil
Value of "alpha"
Deflocculant
Defloc. Corr'n
Meniscus Corr'n
T
Stockpile 13
0.0'
A
1009740
Denison White Mesa Mill Project
ASTM 152 H
2.65
1.00
Sodium Hexametaphosphate
5.0
0.0
Elapsed Hydrometer Reading %
Time Original Corrected Total
(min) "Ru
0.0
0.5 30.50 25.50
1.0 27.50 22.50
2.0 25.00 20.00
5.0 22.50 17.50
15.0 21.00 16.00
30.0 19.50 14.50
60.0 19.00 14.00
120.0 18.00 13.00
250.0 17.00 12.00
1440.0 13.50 8.50
Grain Diameter= K*(SQRT(L/T))
Data entered by: MLM
Data checked by: ~
FileName: MHHYS13A
100Ra/W Sample
42.3 42.3
37.3 37.3
33.2 33.2
29.0 29.0
26.5 26.5
24.0 24.0
23.2 23.2
21.5 21.5
19.9 19.9
14.1 14.1
Date: ;; 11/12/2010
Date: IJ ta,/;o I
JOB NO. 2512-53
SAMPLED
DATE TESTED
WASH SIEVE
DRY SIEVE
Temp., Deg. C
Temp. Coef. K
Wt. Dry Sample "W'
% ofTotal Sample
Effective Grain
Depth Diameter
L (mm)
11.29 0.0620
11.78 0.0448
12.19 0.0322
12.60 0.0207
12.85 0.0121
13.09 0.0086
13.17 0.0061
13.34 0.0043
13.50 0.0030
14.08 0.0013
10/12/10
11/09/1 0 WAR
Yes
No
23.8
0.01304
60.329
100.0
US Standard Sieve Size
" 1.5" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #10 #20 #40 #fiO #100 #200
100
80
I
E ~ 60
~ ~ "' .5 u.. c "' f:: "' 40 n.
'"~
COBBLES
COBBLES
TO BOULDERS
Client MWH
Job Number. 2512-53
Classification:
I
t
!\
i i
I
I ! I \~.0620
! I
0.0448
0.0322
~
~
Grain Size
GRAVEL SAND SILT OR CLAY (mm)
COARSE I FINE CRS I MEDIUM
I
FINE
PEBBLE GRAVEL SAND SILT
COARSE I MED I FINE IGRAN COARSE I MED I FINE
Boring No.: Stockpile 13 Sample No.: A
Depth: 0.0'
Classification Not Performed
II• TestData(mm)
0.0013
uses
CLAY
WENTWORTH

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX B

FREEZE/THAW MODELING

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
B-1 September 2011
B.1 BACKGROUND

Titan Environmental Corporation (Titan) performed a freeze/thaw analysis as part of a Tailings
Cover Design (1996). This current appendix presents an update to the Titan (1996) analysis
with the current soil properties proposed for the cover over the White Mesa tailing disposal cells.
This update reflects modifications to the proposed cover to incorporate an evapotranspiration
(ET) cover, a revised cover grading design, and results of cover material testing conducted in
2010 (ATT, 2010).

The monolithic ET cover system evaluated in this appendix consists of the following materials
listed below from top to bottom:

 0.5 ft (15 cm) Erosion Protection Layer (gravel-admixture)

 3.5 ft (107 cm) Water Storage/Biointrusion/Frost Protection/Radon Attenuation Layer
(loam to sandy clay)

 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation Layer (highly compacted loam to sandy clay)

 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation and Grading Layer (loam to sandy clay)

The loam to sandy clay soil used to construct the ET cover, referred to in previous reports (Titan
1996, Knight Piesold 1999) as random/platform fill, is stockpiled at the site.
B.2 DESCRIPTION OF MODEL AND INPUT VALUES

A digital computer program ModBerg (CRREL) was used to estimate the depth of frost
penetration at the site. ModBerg uses the Modified Berggren Equation (CRREL, 1968) and
input from a built-in long-term weather database. The Modified Berggren Equation is
recommended in DOE (1988) for evaluating freeze/thaw. Model input requirements include the
following:

 N-Factor: a constant used to translate air freezing index to surface freezing index, and
accounts for some properties of the outer layer of a soil layer structure such as reflection
and absorption of solar radiation. An n-factor of 0.6 was used, as recommended by
DOE (1989) to represent a vegetated surface.
 Soil Type
 Layer Thicknesses of Soil
 Moisture Content and Dry Unit Weight of Soil
 Design Air Freezing index: The air freezing index is the number of degree-days between
the highest and lowest points on a curve of cumulative degree-days versus time for one
freezing season. It is a measure of the combined duration and magnitude of below-
freezing temperatures occurring during any given freezing season. The Modberg
database has a built in database that contains this information for locations included in
their database. The design air freezing index used in the Modberg program is
approximately the 91 percentile of freezing indices for 30 years of record. Titan (1996)
used Grand Junction, CO as a representative site. The version of Modberg used in

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
B-2 September 2011
Titan (1996) listed a design air freezing index for Grand Junction of 1101 degree days.
However, this data has since been updated in the Modberg database and is currently
listed as 900 degree days. The current version of Modberg does not allow for
modification to the climate data.
 Design Length of Freezing Season: The number of days during the winter when the
average daily temperature is consistently below the freezing point of water. The length
of the freezing season for Grand Junction is 86 days, and is the value used in both Titan
(1996) and the current analysis.
 Mean Annual Temperature: The average of the mean daily temperatures for a year.
The mean annual temperature for Blanding was given by Dames & Moore (1978) as
49.8 degrees F. However, the current version of ModBerg does not allow for
manipulation of the climate data. Therefore, the mean annual temperature for Grand
Junction, CO (site used by Titan that has sufficient climate data and was determined to
have similar climate and elevation to Blanding, UT) was used. The mean annual
temperature for Grand Junction is 53.1 degrees F.
 Heat Capacity: Calculated by Modberg based on soil type, moisture content, and dry
density. It is a measure of the ability of a material to contain heat through a range of
temperatures.
 Thermal Conductivity: Calculated by ModBerg based on soil input of moisture content
and dry density. It is a measure of the ability of a material to conduct heat across its
boundaries in response to temperature gradient.
 Latent Heat of Fusion: Calculated by ModBerg based on soil type, moisture content,
and dry density. It is a measure of the amount of heat that is needed to cause a phase
change (freezing or thawing) for a unit of mass of the material.

Table B.1 reflects the soil parameters used in the analysis. The input parameters used in the
model are based on recent laboratory testing results for samples of random fill, in addition to
available data from previous work by others, including Chen and Associates (1978, 1979, 1987),
Rogers and Associates Engineering Corporation (1988), Western Colorado Testing (1999), IUC
(1999), and Titan (1996). The available data from recent testing as well as previous testing
performed by others is included in Appendix A. The input parameters and values used in the
model are outlined below.

B.2.4 Density and Long-Term Moisture Content

The densities and water content of the cover materials used in the model are based on
laboratory testing results. The values are summarized in Table B.1 and discussed in more
detail below.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
B-3 September 2011
Table B.1. Densities and Long-Term Moisture Contents of Cover Materials
Material
Degree of
Compaction
(%)
Placed
Density (pcf)
Gravimetric
Water
Content (%)
Erosion Protection --- 124.2* 5.7
Random fill (low compaction water
storage, rooting zone) 85% SP 99.2 7.8
Random Fill (high compaction) 95% SP 110.9 7.8
Random Fill (in place, low
compaction, platform fill) 80% SP 93.4 7.8
SP = standard proctor compaction
* Estimated by applying 25% rock correction factor

The dry density values used in the model for the random fill layers were estimated by laboratory
tests (Chen and Associates, 1978, 1979, 1987, Western Colorado Testing, 1999, Geosyntec,
2006). The referenced reports are provided as part of Appendix A.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 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 (2.5 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 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 rock mulch consisting of topsoil material
mixed with 25 percent gravel. The density of the erosion protection layer was assumed to be
124.2 pcf, based on laboratory testing results for random fill (Chen and Associates, 1978, 1979,
1987, IUC 1999) and an applied rock correction based on 25% gravel.

Long-term moisture contents were estimated based on measured water contents from samples
collected at depths greater than 120 cm (3.9 feet), and estimated water contents using the
empirical equation by Rawls and Brakenseik (1982). The long-term water contents reflect
expected moisture contents in the future and are dependent upon soil characteristics and not
water contents of soils at time of compaction. More details regarding the determination of long-
term moisture contents can be found in Appendix C: Radon Emanation Modeling. It should be
noted that the analysis in Titan (1996) used optimum water content using standard Proctor
compaction characteristics. Over the long-term, the water content of the cover soils is expected
to dry due evaporation, soil suction, and effects of plant rooting. The use of optimum water
content in the analysis is not conservative, because water acts as an insulating layer and
thereby reduces the depth of frost.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
B-4 September 2011
B.3 MODEL RESULTS

The freeze/thaw calculations show the total depth of frost penetration to be 27.1 inches (2.26 ft).
This implies that the upper 27 inches of cover will likely experience a decrease in density and
increased hydraulic conductivity with freeze/thaw cycles. However, because the total cover has
a thickness of 9 feet, the impacts of freeze and thaw will not have significant impacts to the
overall integrity of the cover. This is especially true because the upper 3.5 feet of random fill
cover are assumed to be lightly compacted (85% standard Proctor) in order to sustain plant
growth, which is thought to be similar to the natural densities of surface soils in the site area.
Model output is provided in Attachment B.1

B.5 REFERENCES

Chen and Associates, Inc., 1978. Earth Lined Tailings Cells, White Mesa Uranium Project,
Blanding, Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., July 18.

Chen and Associates, Inc., 1979. Soil Property Study, Proposed Tailings Retention Cells, White
Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding, Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
January 23.

Chen and Associates, Inc., 1987. Physical Soil Data, White Mesa Project, Blanding Utah,
Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.

Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill,
Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0. November.

Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2010. Revised Infiltration and Contaminant
Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. March.

Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec), 2006. Stockpile Evaluation Tailings Cell 4A, White Mesa
Mill - Technical Memo prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. January
23.

International Uranium Corporation (IUC), 2000. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding,
Utah, Source Material License No. SUA-1358, Docket No. 40-8681, Revision 3.0. July.

Knight Piesold, 1999. Radon Emanation Calculations (Revised). Technical Memorandum from
Roman Popielak and Pete Duryea to File 1626B. April 15.

Rawls, W.J., and Brakensiek, D.L., 1982. Estimating Soil Water Retention from Soil Properties,
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol
108, No. IR2, 166-171. June.

TITAN Environmental Corporation (Titan), 1996. Tailings Cover Design, White Mesa Mill,
Blanding Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. September.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL),
Modberg Version 99.2.0.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
B-5 September 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL),
1968. Digital Solution of Modified Berggren Equation to Calculate Depths of Freeze or
Thaw in Multilayered Systems, Special Report 122. October.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1988. Effect of Freezing and Thawing on UMTRA Covers,
Albuquerque, New Mexico. October.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1989. Technical Approach Document, Revision II, Uranium
Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project, UMTRA-DOE/AL 050425.0002, Albuquerque, New
Mexico.
Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999. Soil Sample Testing Results for On-Site Random Fill
and Clay Stockpiles, prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. May.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT B.1
MODBERG MODEL OUTPUT
AttB1 ModBerg Calc.txt
"
------------------------
--- ModBerg Results ---
-----------------------
Project Location: Grand Junction WSO A, Colorado
Air Design Freezing Index = 900 F-days
N-Factor = 0.60
Surface Design Freezing Index = 540 F-days
Mean Annual Temperature = 53.1 deg F
Design Length of Freezing Season = 86 days
---------------------------------------------------------
Layer
#:Type t w% d Cf Cu Kf Ku L
---------------------------------------------------------
1-Coarse 6.0 5.7 124.2 25 28 1.2 1.4 1,019
2-Fine 21.1 7.8 99.2 21 25 .5 .5 1,114
---------------------------------------------------------
t = Layer thickness, in inches.
w% = Moisture content, in percentage of dry density.
d = Dry density, in lbs/cubic ft.
Cf = Heat Capacity of frozen phase, in BTU/(cubic ft degree F).
Cu = Heat Capacity of thawed phase, in BTU/(cubic ft degree F).
Kf = Thermal conductivity in frozen phase, in BTU/(ft hr degree).
Ku = Thermal conductivity in thawed phase, in BTU/(ft hr degree).
L = Latent heat of fusion, in BTU / cubic ft.
*********************************************************
Total Depth of Frost Penetration = 2.26 ft = 27.1 in.
*********************************************************"
Page 1

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX C

RADON EMANATION MODELING

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-1 September 2011
C.1 BACKGROUND

This appendix presents the results of modeling the emanation of radon-222 from the top surface
of the proposed cover over the White Mesa tailing impoundments to achieve the State of Utah’s
long-term radon emanation standard for uranium mill tailings (Utah Administrative Code, Rule
313-24). These results comprise an update of radon emanation modeling presented in
Attachment F of the 2009 Reclamation Plan (Denison, 2009) and Appendix H of the Infiltration
and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report (Denison, 2010). This appendix provides a
summary of further analyses of radon attenuation through the proposed evapotranspiration (ET)
cover, and incorporates the revised cover grading design, and results of cover material testing
conducted in 2010.

The monolithic ET cover system evaluated in this appendix consists of the following layers from
top to bottom:

 0.5 ft (15 cm) Erosion Protection Layer (gravel-admixture)
 3.5 ft (107 cm) Water Storage/Biointrusion/Frost Protection/Radon Attenuation Layer
(loam to sandy clay)
 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation Layer (highly compacted loam to sandy clay)
 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation and Grading Layer (loam to sandy clay)

The loam to sandy clay soil used to construct the ET cover, referred to in previous reports (Titan
1996, Knight Piesold 1999) as random/platform fill, is stockpiled at the site.
C.2 DESCRIPTION OF MODEL AND INPUT VALUES

The thickness of the reclamation cover necessary to limit radon emanation from the disposal
areas was analyzed using the NRC RADON model (NRC, 1989). The model utilizes the one-
dimensional radon diffusion equation, which uses the physical and radiological characteristics of
the tailings and overlying materials to calculate the rate of radon emanation from the tailings
through the cover. The model was used to calculate the cover thickness required to limit the
radon emanation rate through the top of the cover to 20 picocuries per square meter per second
(pCi/m2-s), following the guidance presented in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
publications NUREG/CR-3533 and Regulatory Guide 3.64 (NRC 1984, 1989). The rate of
emanation standard is applied to the average emanation over the entire surface of the disposal
area.

The input parameters used in the model are based on engineering experience with similar
projects, recent laboratory testing results for samples of random fill, in addition to available data
from previous work by others, including Chen and Associates (1978, 1979, 1987), Rogers and
Associates Engineering Corporation (1988), Western Colorado Testing (1999a, 1999b), IUC
(2000), and Titan (1996). The available data from recent testing as well as previous testing
performed by others is summarized in Appendix A. The input parameters and values used in
the model are outlined below.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-2 September 2011
C.2.1 Thickness of Tailings

The thickness of tailings currently deposited in Cells 2 & 3 is approximately 30 ft (914 cm), while
the anticipated tailings thickness deposited in Cells 4A & 4B will be approximately 42 ft (1,280
cm). As documented in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64, a tailings thickness greater than 100 to
200 cm is effectively equivalent to an infinitely thick radon source. Therefore, a thickness of 500
cm may be used in RADON to represent an equivalent infinitely thick tailings source of radon.

C.2.2 Radium Activity Concentration

The radium-226 activity concentration value for the tailings in the impoundments is estimated
based on measured lab data from Rogers & Associates (1988); their original laboratory report is
included as part of Appendix A.1. The radium activity of the random fill and erosion protection
layer is assumed to be zero, based on guidance in Regulatory Guide 3.64 (NRC, 1989) which
states that radium activity in the cover soils may be neglected for cover design purposes
provided the cover soils are obtained from background materials that are not associated with
ore formations or other radium-enriched materials. The values used in the model are as follows:

Table C.1. Radium Activity Concentrations
Material Radium Activity Concentration (pCi/g)
Tailings 981
Random Fill 0
Erosion Protection 0

C.2.3 Radon Emanation Coefficient

The radon emanation coefficient used in the model is estimated from measured laboratory data
(Rogers & Associates, 1988) as 0.19 for all layers. Because site-specific laboratory data is
available, the NRC’s default value of 0.35 is not appropriate.

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
Material Specific
Gravity
Degree of
Compaction
(%)
Placed
Density
(pcf)
Porosity
Erosion Protection 2.67 --- 124.2* 0.25
Random fill (low compaction
water storage, rooting zone) 2.67 85% SP 99.2 0.40
Random Fill (high compaction) 2.67 95% SP 110.9 0.33
Random Fill (in place, low
compaction, platform fill) 2.67 80% SP 93.4 0.44
Tailings 2.75 70% SP 74.3 0.57
SP = standard proctor compaction
* Estimated by applying 25% rock correction factor

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-3 September 2011
The specific gravity of the tailings was estimated as 2.75, and the dry density of the tailings was
estimated as 74.3 pcf, based on laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western
Colorado Testing, 1999b) and assuming the tailings are at 70% of the average laboratory
measured maximum dry density. The referenced reports are provided as part of Appendix A.
The porosity of the tailings was calculated using the estimated specific gravity and dry density
based on the following equation:

݊ൌ1െቀ ఊ೏
ீೞఊೢቁ (Eq. C.1)
where
n = porosity,
d = dry density of soil,
Gs = specific gravity of soil, and
w = unit weight of water.

The specific gravity and dry density values used in the model for the random fill layers were
estimated by laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1978, 1979, 1987, Western Colorado
Testing, 1999a, Geosyntec, 2006). The referenced reports are provided as part of Appendix
A.1. 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 (2.5 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 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 rock mulch consisting of topsoil material
mixed with 25 percent gravel. The specific gravity and density of the erosion protection layer
was assumed to be 2.67 and 124.2 pcf, respectively, based on laboratory testing results for
random fill (Chen and Associates, 1978, 1979, 1987, IUC 2000) and applying a rock correction
based on 25% gravel.

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.

MWH, Inc. (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 (see Appendix A.2). The laboratory results from these samples were
used in conjunction with two methods from NRC (1989) to estimate long-term water contents for
the random fill and erosion protection layers. The two NRC (1989) methods used were: (1)
obtain measured water contents from samples collected at depths greater than 120 cm (3.9
feet); and (2) estimate water contents using the empirical equation by Rawls and Brakenseik
(1982). The Rawls and Brakenseik (1982) equation is as follows:

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-4 September 2011
ߠ ൌ 0.026 ൅ 0.005ݖ ൅ 0.0158ݕ (Eq. C.2)
where
θ= volumetric water content,
z = percent clay in soil, and
y = percent organic matter in soil.

Volumetric water content is related to gravimetric water content, w, by the following equation:

ݓൌ ఏ∙ఊೢ
ఊ೏ (Eq. C.3)
where
w = gravimetric water content,
w = unit weight of water, and
d = dry unit weight of sample during measurement of volumetric water
content.

For samples in which both gravimetric water content was obtained for the sample at depth and
percent clay was measured, the Rawls and Brakenseik volumetric water content was compared
to the measured gravimetric water content. Using best-fit procedures, it was determined that a
dry density of 91.4 pcf resulted in the best correlation between the two methods for the site
data. A preference of methods was established in which measured gravimetric water content of
deep samples was used prior to estimating water content based on the Rawls and Brakenseik
equation. A weighted average procedure that accounts for the size of each stockpile was
incorporated to determine the average gravimetric water content for the random fill and topsoil.
The compaction densities and average long-term moisture contents are summarized in Table
C.3. A table showing the estimation of the long-term water content is provided as Attachment
C.1.

Table C.3. Compaction Densities and Estimated Long-Term Moisture Contents
Material
Degree of
Compaction
(%)
Placed
Density (pcf)
Gravimetric
Water
Content (%)
Erosion Protection --- 124.2 5.7
Random fill (low compaction water
storage, rooting zone) 85% SP 99.2 7.8
Random Fill (high compaction) 95% SP 110.9 7.8
Random Fill (in place, low
compaction, platform fill) 80% SP 93.4 7.8
Tailings 70% SP 74.3 6.0

C.2.6 Diffusion Coefficient

The radon diffusion coefficient used in the RADON model can either be calculated within the
model (based on an empirical relationship dependent upon porosity and the degree of
saturation) or input directly in the model using values measured from laboratory testing.
Although laboratory test data was available for the tailings and the cover material (Rogers &
Associates 1988), tests were performed at porosities and water contents different than those
estimated to represent long-term conditions. Therefore, the empirical relationship in RADON
was used, resulting in the calculated values summarized in Table C.4 below.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-5 September 2011
Table C.4. Calculated Radon Diffusion Coefficients
Material Degree of
Saturation (%)
Diffusion
Coefficient (cm2/s)
Erosion Protection 44.7 0.0123
Random Fill (low compaction water
storage, rooting zone) 30.7 0.0248
Random Fill (high compaction) 41.6 0.0152
Random Fill (in place, low
compaction, platform fill) 26.7 0.0294
Tailings 12.5 0.0499

C.3 MODEL RESULTS

The radon emanation modeling results show that the designed cover system will reduce the rate
of radon emanation to values below the limit of 20 picocuries per square meter per second
(pCi/m2-s) averaged over the entire area of the tailings impoundments, which is the regulatory
criterion (Utah Administrative Code, Rule 313-24). The RADON model output is provided in
Attachment C.2.

C.4 IMPACTS OF INCREASED THICKNESS OF RANDOM FILL

Radon modeling as discussed above assumed that the lower layer of random fill was placed at
80 percent of standard Proctor compaction, and had a thickness of 2.5 feet (assuming top 6
inches can be compacted to 95% standard Proctor compaction prior to placement of additional
fill). However, based on the assumption that the top of tailings is 18 inches below the top of the
flexible membrane liner (FML), the thickness of existing random fill in Cell 2 is significantly
thicker than 3.0 feet in some areas. Additional modeling was performed to determine the
minimum thickness of highly compacted random fill required in order to meet regulatory
criterion. This modeling indicates that for every extra foot of low-compaction (80% standard
Proctor compaction), the highly compacted (95% standard Proctor compaction) can be reduced
in thickness by 0.64 ft. This trend is shown in Figure C.1. The RADON model output is
provided in Attachment C.3.

C.5 REFERENCES

Chen and Associates, Inc., 1978. Earth Lined Tailings Cells, White Mesa Uranium Project,
Blanding, Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc., July 18.

Chen and Associates, Inc., 1979. Soil Property Study, Proposed Tailings Retention Cells, White
Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding, Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.
January 23.

Chen and Associates, Inc., 1987. Physical Soil Data, White Mesa Project, Blanding Utah,
Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.

Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill,
Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0, November.

Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2010. Revised Infiltration and Contaminant
Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, March.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
C-6 September 2011
Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec), 2006. Stockpile Evaluation Tailings Cell 4A, White Mesa
Mill - Technical Memo prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. January
23.

International Uranium Corporation (IUC), 2000. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding,
Utah, Source Material License No. SUA-1358, Docket No. 40-8681, Revision 3.0. July.

Knight Piesold, 1999. Radon Emanation Calculations (Revised). Technical Memorandum from
Roman Popielak and Pete Duryea to File 1626B. April 15.

Rawls, W.J., and Brakensiek, D.L., 1982. Estimating Soil Water Retention from Soil Properties,
Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol
108, No. IR2, 166-171. June.

Rogers & Associates Engineering Corporation, 1988. Two separate letters prepared by Renee
Y. Bowser for C.O. Sealy of Umetco Minerals Corporation. March 4 and May 9.

TITAN Environmental Corporation (Titan), 1996. Tailings Cover Design, White Mesa Mill,
Blanding Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. September.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1984. Radon Attenuation Handbook for Uranium
Mill Tailings Cover Design, NUREG/CR-3533.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by
Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, Regulatory Guide 3.64.
Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999a. Soil Sample Testing Results for On-Site Random Fill
and Clay Stockpiles, prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. May.

Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999b. Report of Soil Sample Testing of Tailings Collected
from Cell 2 and Cell 3, Prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. May 4.

11.0
y = 0.3577x + 8.0499
9.0
10.0
7.0
8.0
(f
t
)
Total Cover Thickness
5.0
6.0
uir
e
d

T
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s

Highly Compacted Random
Fill Thickness
3.0
4.0Re
q
u
y = -0.6423x + 4.0499
1.0
2.0
0.0
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Thickness of Lower Random Fill (ft)
PROJECT
RADON EMANATION
INCREASED THICKNESS OF LOWER
RANDOM FILL VS TOTAL COVER THICKNESS
TITLE
DATE
FILENAME
FIGURE C.1
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION
AUG 2011
Radon grading plan evaluation.xlsx

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT C.1
LONG-TERM MOISTURE CONTENT ESTIMATION TABLES
DENISON MINES WHITE MESA MILL
Table 1. Estimation of Long-Term Water Contents
Borrow Stockpile ID Material Description
Estimated
Stockpile
Volume1 (cy) Sample ID
Sample
Depth (ft) % Clay
2
Measured
Gravimetric
Water
Content (%)
Gravimetric
Water
Content Est.
using Rawls
Eqn.3 (%) Comments
E1 Topsoil 15,900 not sampled
A 5 4.5
B 12 14.0 6.6
sample from working
face at south end of
stockpile
E3 Random Fill 16,800 not sampled
E4 Sandy Clay Random Fill 66,600 A 5 8.6
E5 Sandy Clay Random Fill 68,800 A 6 9.0
E6 Clay Random Fill 100,700 A 5 14.4
E7 Sandy Clay Random Fill 74,900 A 6 5.7
E8 Sandy Clay Random Fill 227,300 A 2 16.1 7.3
W1 Sandy Clay Random Fill 85,700 A 5 8.8
W2 Sandy Clay Random Fill 584,500 A surface 15.8 7.2
W3 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) 84,800 A surface 13.1 6.3
W4 Topsoil (Sandy Silt) 90,000 A 5 5.3
W5 Random Fill 965,200 not sampled
W6 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) 93,400 A surface 11.1 5.6
W7 Sandy Clay Random Fill 39,500 A 5 8.7
W8 Random Fill 900,000 not sampled
W9 Sandy Clay Random Fill 300,000 A surface 17.4 7.7
Random Fill:
Topsoil (adj. of addition of 25% gravel):
Notes:
1. Volumes estimated using 2009 topography and assuming a relatively flat bottom surface, except for stockpiles W8 and W9. The volumes for stockpiles W8 and W9
were estimated based on the volume of material excavated from Cell 4B (1,360,000 cy) less the material used to construct the Cell 4B berm (83,000 cy), and assuming stockpile W8 is approximately 3x larger than W9 (based on visual observation).
2. % Clay corrected for 25% gravel added to topsoil admixture.
3. Gravimetric water content of random fill samples calculated using dry density of 91.4 pcf.
E2 Silty Sand/Clayey Sand
Random Fill 92,000
7.8
5.7Weighted Average Gravimetric Water Content (%):
Appendix C.1

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT C.2
RADON MODEL OUTPUT
-----*****! RADON !*****-----

Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# [phone]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research

RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS
ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS

OUTPUT FILE: White Mesa 030811
DESCRIPTION: White Mesa Mill

CONSTANTS

RADON DECAY CONSTANT .0000021 s^-1
RADON WATER/AIR PARTITION COEFFICIENT .26
DEFAULT SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF COVER & TAILINGS 2.65

GENERAL INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYERS OF COVER AND TAILINGS 5
DEFAULT RADON FLUX LIMIT 20 pCi m^-2 s^-1
NO. OF THE LAYER TO BE OPTIMIZED 3
DEFAULT SURFACE RADON CONCENTRATION 0 pCi l^-1
SURFACE FLUX PRECISION .001 pCi m^-2 s^-1

LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYER 1 Tailings
THICKNESS 500 cm
POROSITY .57
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.19 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 981 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 8.172D-04 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .125
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 4.990D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 2 Random Fill 80% Compaction
THICKNESS 76.2 cm
POROSITY .439
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .267
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.944D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 3 Random Fill 95% Compaction
THICKNESS 1 cm
POROSITY .334
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.78 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .416
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.520D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 4 Random Fill 85% Compaction
THICKNESS 106.7 cm
POROSITY .404
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.59 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .307
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.478D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 5 Erosion Protection Layer
THICKNESS 15.2 cm
POROSITY .254
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.99 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 5.7 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .447
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.226D-02 cm^2 s^-1

DATA SENT TO THE FILE `RNDATA' ON DRIVE A:

N F01 CN1 ICOST CRITJ ACC
5 -1.000D+00 0.000D+00 3 2.000D+01 1.000D-03

LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO
1 5.000D+02 4.990D-02 5.700D-01 8.172D-04 1.253D-01 1.190
2 7.620D+01 2.944D-02 4.390D-01 0.000D+00 2.665D-01 1.500
3 1.000D+00 1.520D-02 3.340D-01 0.000D+00 4.157D-01 1.780
4 1.067D+02 2.478D-02 4.040D-01 0.000D+00 3.070D-01 1.590
5 1.520D+01 1.226D-02 2.540D-01 0.000D+00 4.466D-01 1.990

BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 6.891D+02 pCi m^-2 s^-1

RESULTS OF THE RADON DIFFUSION CALCULATIONS

LAYER THICKNESS EXIT FLUX EXIT CONC.
(cm) (pCi m^-2 s^-1) (pCi l^-1)

1 5.000D+02 2.111D+02 2.598D+05
2 7.620D+01 8.352D+01 1.459D+05
3 7.470D+01 4.310D+01 3.827D+04
4 1.067D+02 2.042D+01 1.135D+04
5 1.520D+01 2.002D+01 0.000D+00

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT C.3
RADON MODEL OUTPUT FOR VARIABLE THICKNESS OF RANDOM FILL
Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date: 5/31/2011
Detail: Radon Emanation: Depth of Interim Fill vs Total Cover Thickness Computed By: RTS
Existing 
Interim 
Fill
Modeled 
Random 
Fill at 
80%1
Required 
Thickness 
of 95% SP 
Layer
Additional Fill 
needed for 3 
layers of 
Cover 
Construction
Total 
Cover 
thickness 
Required 
at Point
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
3.0 2.5 2.5 6.0 9.0
3.5 3.0 2.1 5.6 9.1
4.0 3.5 1.8 5.3 9.3
4.5 4.0 1.5 5.0 9.5
5.0 4.5 1.1 4.6 9.6
5.5 5.0 0.8 4.3 9.8
6.0 5.5 0.5 4.0 10.0
6.5 6.0 0.2 3.7 10.2
6.9 6.4 0.0 3.5 10.4
1 Assumes top 6 inches will be compacted to 95% Standard Proctor
Attachment C.3
-----*****! RADON !*****-----

Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# [phone]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research

RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS
ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS

OUTPUT FILE: White mesa 4.0 ft interim cover

DESCRIPTION: White Mesa: 4.0 ft of existing interim cover, top 6 inches
compacted.

CONSTANTS

RADON DECAY CONSTANT .0000021 s^-1
RADON WATER/AIR PARTITION COEFFICIENT .26
DEFAULT SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF COVER & TAILINGS 2.65

GENERAL INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYERS OF COVER AND TAILINGS 5
DEFAULT RADON FLUX LIMIT 20 pCi m^-2 s^-1
NO. OF THE LAYER TO BE OPTIMIZED 3
DEFAULT SURFACE RADON CONCENTRATION 0 pCi l^-1
SURFACE FLUX PRECISION .001 pCi m^-2 s^-1

LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYER 1 Tailings

THICKNESS 500 cm
POROSITY .57
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.19 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 981 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 8.172D-04 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .125
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 4.990D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 2 Random fill 80% Compaction

THICKNESS 106.7 cm
POROSITY .439
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .267
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.944D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 3 Random Fill 95% Compaction

THICKNESS 1 cm
POROSITY .334
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.78 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .416
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.520D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 4 Random Fill 85% Compaction

THICKNESS 106.7 cm
POROSITY .404
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.59 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .307
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.478D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 5 Erosion Protection Layer

THICKNESS 15.2 cm
POROSITY .254
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.99 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 5.7 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .447
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.226D-02 cm^2 s^-1

DATA SENT TO THE FILE `RNDATA' ON DRIVE A:

N F01 CN1 ICOST CRITJ ACC
5 -1.000D+00 0.000D+00 3 2.000D+01 1.000D-03

LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO
1 5.000D+02 4.990D-02 5.700D-01 8.172D-04 1.253D-01 1.190
2 1.067D+02 2.944D-02 4.390D-01 0.000D+00 2.665D-01 1.500
3 1.000D+00 1.520D-02 3.340D-01 0.000D+00 4.157D-01 1.780
4 1.067D+02 2.478D-02 4.040D-01 0.000D+00 3.070D-01 1.590
5 1.520D+01 1.226D-02 2.540D-01 0.000D+00 4.466D-01 1.990

BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 6.891D+02 pCi m^-2 s^-1

RESULTS OF THE RADON DIFFUSION CALCULATIONS

LAYER THICKNESS EXIT FLUX EXIT CONC.
(cm) (pCi m^-2 s^-1) (pCi l^-1)

1 5.000D+02 2.229D+02 2.534D+05
2 1.067D+02 6.809D+01 1.116D+05
3 5.481D+01 4.309D+01 3.826D+04
4 1.067D+02 2.041D+01 1.135D+04
5 1.520D+01 2.002D+01 0.000D+00

-----*****! RADON !*****-----

Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# [phone]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research

RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS
ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS

OUTPUT FILE: White mesa 6 ft interim cover

DESCRIPTION: White Mesa: 6 ft of existing interim cover, top 6 inches
compacted.

CONSTANTS

RADON DECAY CONSTANT .0000021 s^-1
RADON WATER/AIR PARTITION COEFFICIENT .26
DEFAULT SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF COVER & TAILINGS 2.65

GENERAL INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYERS OF COVER AND TAILINGS 5
DEFAULT RADON FLUX LIMIT 20 pCi m^-2 s^-1
NO. OF THE LAYER TO BE OPTIMIZED 3
DEFAULT SURFACE RADON CONCENTRATION 0 pCi l^-1
SURFACE FLUX PRECISION .001 pCi m^-2 s^-1

LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYER 1 Tailings

THICKNESS 500 cm
POROSITY .57
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.19 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 981 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 8.172D-04 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .125
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 4.990D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 2 Random fill 80% Compaction

THICKNESS 168 cm
POROSITY .439
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .267
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.944D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 3 Random Fill 95% Compaction

THICKNESS 1 cm
POROSITY .334
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.78 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .416
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.520D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 4 Random Fill 85% Compaction

THICKNESS 106.7 cm
POROSITY .404
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.59 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .307
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.478D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 5 Erosion Protection Layer

THICKNESS 15.2 cm
POROSITY .254
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.99 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 5.7 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .447
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.226D-02 cm^2 s^-1

DATA SENT TO THE FILE `RNDATA' ON DRIVE A:

N F01 CN1 ICOST CRITJ ACC
5 -1.000D+00 0.000D+00 3 2.000D+01 1.000D-03

LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO
1 5.000D+02 4.990D-02 5.700D-01 8.172D-04 1.253D-01 1.190
2 1.680D+02 2.944D-02 4.390D-01 0.000D+00 2.665D-01 1.500
3 1.000D+00 1.520D-02 3.340D-01 0.000D+00 4.157D-01 1.780
4 1.067D+02 2.478D-02 4.040D-01 0.000D+00 3.070D-01 1.590
5 1.520D+01 1.226D-02 2.540D-01 0.000D+00 4.466D-01 1.990

BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 6.891D+02 pCi m^-2 s^-1

RESULTS OF THE RADON DIFFUSION CALCULATIONS

LAYER THICKNESS EXIT FLUX EXIT CONC.
(cm) (pCi m^-2 s^-1) (pCi l^-1)

1 5.000D+02 2.343D+02 2.472D+05
2 1.680D+02 4.812D+01 6.080D+04
3 1.583D+01 4.310D+01 3.827D+04
4 1.067D+02 2.042D+01 1.135D+04
5 1.520D+01 2.002D+01 0.000D+00

-----*****! RADON !*****-----

Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# [phone]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research

RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS
ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS

OUTPUT FILE: White Mesa 6.9 ft interim cover

DESCRIPTION: White Mesa: 6.9 ft of existing interim cover, top 6 inches
compacted

CONSTANTS

RADON DECAY CONSTANT .0000021 s^-1
RADON WATER/AIR PARTITION COEFFICIENT .26
DEFAULT SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF COVER & TAILINGS 2.65

GENERAL INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYERS OF COVER AND TAILINGS 5
DEFAULT RADON FLUX LIMIT 20 pCi m^-2 s^-1
NO. OF THE LAYER TO BE OPTIMIZED 3
DEFAULT SURFACE RADON CONCENTRATION 0 pCi l^-1
SURFACE FLUX PRECISION .001 pCi m^-2 s^-1

LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS

LAYER 1 Tailings

THICKNESS 500 cm
POROSITY .57
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.19 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 981 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 8.172D-04 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .125
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 4.990D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 2 Random fill 80% Compaction

THICKNESS 195 cm
POROSITY .439
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .267
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.944D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 3 Random Fill 95% Compaction

THICKNESS 1 cm
POROSITY .334
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.78 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .416
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.520D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 4 Random Fill 85% Compaction

THICKNESS 106.7 cm
POROSITY .404
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.59 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 7.8 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .307
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.478D-02 cm^2 s^-1

LAYER 5 Erosion Protection Layer

THICKNESS 15.2 cm
POROSITY .254
MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.99 g cm^-3
MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1
MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .19
CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1
WEIGHT % MOISTURE 5.7 %
MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .447
CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.226D-02 cm^2 s^-1

DATA SENT TO THE FILE `RNDATA' ON DRIVE A:

N F01 CN1 ICOST CRITJ ACC
5 -1.000D+00 0.000D+00 3 2.000D+01 1.000D-03

LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO
1 5.000D+02 4.990D-02 5.700D-01 8.172D-04 1.253D-01 1.190
2 1.950D+02 2.944D-02 4.390D-01 0.000D+00 2.665D-01 1.500
3 1.000D+00 1.520D-02 3.340D-01 0.000D+00 4.157D-01 1.780
4 1.067D+02 2.478D-02 4.040D-01 0.000D+00 3.070D-01 1.590
5 1.520D+01 1.226D-02 2.540D-01 0.000D+00 4.466D-01 1.990

BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 6.891D+02 pCi m^-2 s^-1

RESULTS OF THE RADON DIFFUSION CALCULATIONS

LAYER THICKNESS EXIT FLUX EXIT CONC.
(cm) (pCi m^-2 s^-1) (pCi l^-1)

1 5.000D+02 2.366D+02 2.460D+05
2 1.950D+02 4.301D+01 4.428D+04
3 0.000D+00 4.301D+01 3.819D+04
4 1.067D+02 2.038D+01 1.133D+04
5 1.520D+01 1.998D+01 0.000D+00

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX D

VEGETATION AND BIOTINTRUSION EVALUATION

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-1 September 2011
D.1 INTRODUCTION

This appendix provides an evaluation of vegetation that would be used as an integral part of an
evapotranspiration (ET) cover proposed for reclamation of tailing cells at the White Mesa Mill
Site. A critical component of an ET cover is the plant community that will be established on the
cover and will function over the long term to provide protection from wind and water erosion and
assist in removing water through the process of transpiration. In this appendix, issues related to
the short-term establishment and long-term sustainability of vegetation proposed as part of the
ET cover are addressed. These issues include: plant species selection, ecological
characteristics of species (i.e., longevity, sustainability, compatibility, competition, rooting depth
and root distribution), characteristics of the established plant community (i.e., percent plant
cover and leaf area index [LAI]), and soil requirements for sustained plant growth. In addition,
plant root growth and animal burrowing activity are discussed in relation to their potential for
biointrusion into the covered tailing.

D.2 PROPOSED SPECIES FOR ET COVER RECLAMATION

The following 12 species (10 grasses and 2 forbs) are proposed for the ET cover system at the
White Mesa Mill Site. These species were selected for their adaptability to site conditions,
compatibility, and long-term sustainability. Species were also selected based on the
assumption that institutional controls will prohibit grazing by domestic livestock. The proposed
species are:

 Western wheatgrass, variety Arriba (Pascopyrum smithii)
 Bluebunch wheatgrass, variety Goldar (Pseudoroegneria spicata)
 Slender wheatgrass, variety San Luis (Elymus trachycaulus)
 Streambank wheatgrass, variety Sodar (Elymus lanceolatus ssp. psammophilus)
 Pubescent wheatgrass, variety Luna (Thinopyrum intermedium ssp. barbulatum)
 Indian ricegrass, variety Paloma (Achnatherum hymenoides)
 Sandberg bluegrass, variety Canbar (Poa secunda)
 Sheep fescue, variety Covar (Festuca ovina)
 Squirreltail, variety Toe Jam Creek (Elymus elymoides)
 Blue grama, variety Hachita (Bouteloua gracilis)
 Common yarrow, no variety (Achillea millefolium)
 White sage, no variety (Artemisia ludoviciana).

These species are described in more detail later in this appendix.

D.3 PROPOSED SEEDING RATES

Given a mixture of the species listed above, Table D-1 presents broadcast seeding rates for
each species. Seeding rates were developed based on the objective of establishing a
permanent cover of grasses and forbs in a mixture that would promote compatibility among
species and minimize competitive exclusion or loss of species over time.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-2 September 2011

The number of seeds placed in a unit area of soil is called the seeding rate. The total seeding
rate is the sum of the individual species seeding rates. Seeding rates are normally expressed
as the number of seeds per square foot or pounds per acre. Many different seeding rates for
the same species can be found in the literature. The primary reason for these differences is that
some rates are for monocultures and other rates are for diverse mixtures.

Seeding rates are developed on the basis of number of seeds per unit area (e.g. number of
seeds per square foot). Once this number is determined, then it can be converted to weight per
unit area (e.g. pounds per acre). Since each species produces seed that weighs a different
amount, the development of seeding rates based purely on weight per unit area will produce
erroneous rates that will tend to over emphasize small seeded species and under-emphasize
large seeded species. For example, blue grama has approximately 700,000 seeds per pound,
while Indian ricegrass has approximately 175,000 seeds per pound. If seeding rates were
calculated simply on the basis of weight per unit area, without recognizing the fact that a pound
of blue grama seed has four times the number of seeds per pound as Indian ricegrass, it would
be very easy to over plant blue grama and under plant Indian ricegrass.

Table D-1. Species and Seeding Rates Proposed for ET Cover at the White Mesa Mill Site
Scientific Name Common Name Native/
Introduced
Seeding Rate
(# PLS
seeds/ft2) †
Seeding
Rate (lbs
PLS/acre)†
Grasses
Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass Native 6.0 3.0
Pseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass Native 8.0 3.0
Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass Native 5.0 2.0
Elymus lanceolatus Streambank
wheatgrass
Native 5.5 2.0
Elymus elymoides Squirreltail Native 7.0 2.0
Thinopyrum intermedium Pubescent wheatgrass Introduced‡ 1.5 1.0
Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass Native 8.0 4.0
Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass Native 9.0 0.5
Festuca ovina Sheep fescue Native 9.0 1.0
Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama Native 13.0 1.0
Forbs
Achillea millefolium Common yarrow Native 23.0 0.5
Artemisia ludoviciana White sage Native 23.0 0.5
Total 118.0 21.0
†Seeding rate is for broadcast seed and presented as number of pure live seeds per ft2 and pounds of
pure live seed per acre. ‡Introduced refers to species that have been ‘introduced’ from another
geographic region, typically outside of North America. Also referred to as ‘exotic’ species.

Seeding rate may be calculated from an expected field emergence for each species and the
desired number of plants per unit area. For purposes of calculation, field emergence for small
seeded grasses and forbs is assumed to be around 50% if germination is greater than 80%.
Field emergence is assumed to be around 30% if germination is between 60 and 80%. The
Natural Resource Conservation Service recommends a seeding rate of 20 to 30 pure live seeds
per square foot as a minimum number of seeds when drill seeding in areas with an annual
precipitation between 6 and 18 inches. Twenty pure live seeds per square foot, with an
expected field emergence of 50% should produce an adequate number of plants on the seeded
area to control erosion and suppress annual invasion. This seeding rate is primarily for

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-3 September 2011
favorable growing conditions, soils that are not extreme in texture, gentle slopes, north or east
facing aspect, good moisture, and adequate soil nutrients. When conditions are less favorable
or when the seed is broadcast, seeding rates are increased up to a level that is two to four times
the drill rate for favorable conditions. A multiplier of 4x was used in establishing the proposed
seeding rate.

A CQAQC Plan for application rates and procedures for confirming that specified application
rates are achieved is as follows. The first step begins with a seed order. Seed will be
purchased as pounds of pure live seed. Each State has a seed certifying agency and
certification programs may be adopted by seed growers (e.g. Utah State Department of
Agriculture and Food). Certification of a container of seed assures the customer that the seed is
correctly identified and genetically pure. The State agency responsible for seed certification
sets minimum standards for mechanical purity and germination for each species of seed. When
certified, a container of seed must be labeled as to origin, germination percentage, date of the
germination test, percentage of pure seed (by weight), other crop and weed seeds, and inert
material. The certification is the consumer’s best guarantee that the seed being purchased
meets minimum standards and the quality specified.

Once the seed is obtained, seed labels will be checked to determine the percent PLS and the
date that the seed was tested for percent purity and percent germination. If the test date is
greater than 6 months old, the seed will be tested again before being accepted. Seed will be
applied using a broadcasting method. This procedure will use a centrifugal type broadcaster,
also called an end gate seeder. These broadcasters operate with an electric motor and are
usually mounted on the back of a small tractor and generally have an effective spreading width
of about 20 feet or more. Prior to seeding, a known area will be covered with a tarp and seed
will be distributed using the broadcaster and simulating conditions that would exist under actual
seeding conditions. Seed will then be collected and weighed to determine actual seeding rate in
terms of pounds per acre. This process will be repeated until the specified seeding rate is
obtained. During the seeding process, the seeding rate will be verified at least once by
comparing pounds of seed applied to the size of the area seeded. In addition, seed will be
applied in two separate passes. One-half of the seed will be spread in one direction and the
other half of seed will be spread in a perpendicular direction. This will ensure that seed
distribution across the site is highly uniform and also provide the opportunity to adjust the
seeding rate if the specified rate is not being achieved.

D.4 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED SPECIES AND ESTABLISHED
PLANT COMMUNITY

D.4.1 Longevity and Sustainability

All of the species proposed for reclamation of the tailings cells are long-lived, except for slender
wheatgrass (Elymus trachycaulus) and squirreltail (Elymus elymoides). Slender wheatgrass is a
perennial bunchgrass that is short-lived (5 to 10 years) but has the ability to reseed and spread
vegetatively with rhizomes. Squirreltail is also a short-lived perennial but has the ability to
establish quickly and is highly effective in competing with undesirable annual grasses. Both of
these species are included in the proposed seed mixture because of their ability to provide quick
cover for erosion protection and to effectively compete with annual and biennial species that
cannot be relied upon to provide consistent and sustainable plant cover. The use of these
species will facilitate the establishment of the remaining long-lived perennials that have been
documented to be highly adapted to the elevation, climate, and soil conditions found at the

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-4 September 2011
White Mesa Mill Site (Monsen et al., 2004; Alderson and Sharp, 1994; Wasser, 1982;
Thornburg, 1982).

The perennial grasses and forbs in the proposed seed mixture include species that develop
individual plants that are long lived (30 years or more) and are able to reproduce either by seed
or vegetative plant parts like rhizomes and tillers. The use of these species in reclamation of
the tailing cells will ensure a permanent or sustainable plant cover because of the highly
adapted nature of these species to existing site conditions, their tolerance to environmental
stresses such as drought, fire, and herbivory, and their ability to effectively reproduce over time.

The use of a mixture of species for the ET cover also contributes to longevity and sustainability.
The establishment of a diverse community has many advantages over a monoculture for
sustained plant growth. The use of a variety of species ensures that diverse microsites that
may exist over a seeded site are properly matched with species that are adapted to those
specific environmental conditions. In addition, a mixture of species reverses the loss of plant
diversity and enhances natural recovery processes following impacts from insects, disease
organisms, and adverse climatic events. Finally, mixtures provide improved ground cover and
surface stability, along with reducing weed invasion by fully utilizing plant resources such as
water, nutrients, sunlight and space. Weeds in this context are typically annual or biennial
plants considered to be undesirable or troublesome, especially growing where they are not
wanted.

D.4.2 Compatibility

Reclamation research and its application have been ongoing in the U.S. since the early 1900s.
First with the reseeding of millions of acres following the dust bowl of the 1930s. Then,
improvements of large tracts of arid and semiarid rangelands between the 1960s and 1980s
following more than a half a century of rangeland exploitation through overgrazing. In 1985 the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program was implemented which
resulted in the conversion of more than 40 million acres of marginal farm land to permanent
grasslands through an extensive seeding program. Finally, there have been tens of thousands
of acres of mined lands reclaimed across the U.S. with the implementation of federal and state
rules and regulations governing mine land reclamation. Over this time period, there have been
thousands of reclamation publications in the form of books, scientific journal articles, symposium
proceedings, and government publications. Many publications have reported on the
performance of individual species and mixtures of species under semiarid conditions similar to
southeastern Utah (e.g., Plummer et al., 1968; Monsen et al., 2004). All of this work has led to
a knowledge base about species compatibility. Species that are seeded together in mixtures
must be compatible as young, developing plants or certain individuals will succeed and others
will fail. The species proposed for the ET cover at the White Mesa Mill Site are all compatible
with each other and seeding rates will be used to prevent overseeding species that may be
aggressive [e.g., pubescent wheatgrass (Thinopyrum intermedium)] and could potentially
dominate the site (Monsen et al., 2004). These species are commonly seeded together and
many studies have shown excellent interspecies compatibility (e.g., DePuit et al., 1978; DePuit,
1982; Redente et al., 1984; Sydnor and Redente, 2000; Newman and Redente, 2001). Finally,
to increase compatibility and to reduce competition among seeded species, sites would be
broadcast seeded as opposed to drill seeded. According to Monsen et al. (2004), drill seeding
causes species in a mixture to be placed in potentially competitive situations, while broadcasted
seeds are not placed in as close contact with each other as with drilling and therefore are less
likely to be negatively impacted from competition.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-5 September 2011
D.4.3 Competition

There are two ways to view competition. In the context of establishing an ET cover on the
tailing cells, the use of seeded species to compete with weeds or woody plants is a desirable
attribute. However, competition among seeded species with the potential loss of any of these
species is undesirable. Therefore, as stated earlier, the proposed seed mixtures is comprised
of species that can coexist and also fully utilize plant resources to keep weeds or woody species
from colonizing and excluding seeded species. The establishment of weeds, especially
invasives (i.e., non-native species whose introduction causes economic and environmental
harm) is unacceptable because of the potential loss of seeded perennial species and the
subsequent reduction in species diversity, plant cover, and overall sustainability. The
establishment of deep rooted woody plants is unacceptable because of the potential for
biointrusion through the cover and into the tailings material. Once established, the proposed
seed mixture will produce a grass-forb community of highly adapted and productive species that
will effectively compete with undesirable species, including shrubs native to the area. Paschke
et al. (2003) present a literature review on shrub establishment on mined lands and conclude
that one of the primary reasons that shrub establishment does not occur in mined land
reclamation is because of competition from herbaceous species. This finding is also supported
by DePuit et al. (1980), DePuit (1988), Munshower (1994), and Monsen et al. (2004). Because
of the highly adapted and competitive nature of the species that will be seeded, the invasion of
indigenous woody species will be inhibited, and intrusion into the cover below the water storage
layer (top 4 feet (122 cm) of the cover) from their roots is not anticipated to occur. Woody
species in this environment are slow-growing and not nearly as competitive for water and
nutrients as the proposed grass and forb species (Monsen et al., 2004). In addition, species like
sagebrush, piñon pine, and Utah juniper have become dominant components of the regional
flora primarily because of decades of overgrazing that has removed more palatable grasses and
forbs and allowed less palatable woody species to establish and expand their range (Dames
and Moore, 1978; Ellison, 1960). This process is referred to as retrogression (Holechek et al.,
1998). These conditions will not occur on the tailing cells cover and therefore will not be a factor
favoring the establishment of woody species.

D.4.4 Percent Plant Cover and Leaf Area Index

Monitoring of an alternative cover at the Monticello, Utah Uranium Mill Tailings Disposal Site
showed that the plant cover performed well over a seven year period. Plant cover ranged from
5.5% during the first growing season to nearly 46% in the seventh growing season (Waugh et
al., 2008). A total of 18 species were seeded at the Monticello Site and of these 18 species,
eight species contributed 70% of the total plant cover. Approximately one half of the species
proposed for the White Mesa Site were seeded at Monticello and of the eight best-performing
species, four of these species are in the White Mesa mixture. High performing species used at
Monticello that are not proposed for White Mesa include three introduced species that can be
highly competitive (i.e. smooth brome, crested wheatgrass, and alfalfa) and were not considered
acceptable for the White Mesa Site. Based on these results and the similarity in environmental
conditions between Monticello and White Mesa, a plant cover estimate of 40% was determined
to be a reasonable estimate for a long-term average, while a percent plant cover of 30% was
assigned as a worst case scenario under drought conditions. The percent vegetative cover at
White Mesa is expected to be slightly less than what would be found at Monticello because the
average annual precipitation at White Mesa is approximately 13 inches compared to 15 inches
at Monticello and the average annual maximum/minimum air temperatures are 64/37oF for
White Mesa and 59/33oF for Monticello. The slightly greater precipitation and lower

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-6 September 2011
temperatures at Monticello are due to its slightly higher elevation of 7,000 feet compared to
5,600 feet at White Mesa.

Long-term average plant cover for the tailing cells along with monthly leaf area index (LAI)
values were estimated for the proposed ET cover at the White Mesa Site. Three primary
publications were used to estimate monthly LAI for the ET cover, including: Groeneveld (1997),
Scurlock et al. (2001), and Fang et al. (2008). Table D-2 presents a compilation of LAI values
based on North American data sets that were focused on semiarid herbaceous plant
communities. It is important to note that the proposed species for the ET cover include both
cool- and warm-season species. This combination of species will maximize the length of the
growing season and transpiration from early spring to late fall. Cool-season species are more
productive and use more water during the cooler times of the growing season, while warm-
season species are more productive and use more water during the warmest period of the year.

Table D-2. Leaf Area Index for the ET Cover at White Mesa Mill Site
Month
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
0 0 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.8 2.4 2.6 0.8 0.1 0

The formation of desert pavement and potential impact on plant cover has been raised as an
issue for discussion. Desert pavements are armored surfaces composed of angular or rounded
rock fragments, usually one or two stones thick, set on or in a matrix of finer material (Cooke
and Warren, 1973). These surfaces form on arid soils through deflation of fine material by wind
or water erosion due to a lack of protection by surface vegetation (Cooke and Warren, 1973).
Desert pavements are not common in semiarid regions and do not occur where either wind or
water erosion are controlled by plant cover (Hendricks, 1991), as would be the case for the
White Mesa cover system. In addition, there is no evidence of desert pavement formation either
on the White Mesa Site or areas surrounding the site. Even with the use of a topsoil layer
amended with gravel, there is no supporting evidence to indicate a potential for desert
pavement formation or an associated decrease in plant cover over the long term.

D.5 BIOINTRUSION

D.5.1 Plant Intrusion

The proposed cover system is a monolithic ET cover that consists of the following layers from
top to bottom: 15 cm of a topsoil-gravel erosion protection layer over 107 cm of a water
storage, biointursion and radon attenuation layer over 75 cm of a highly compacted radon
attenuation layer over 75 cm of a grading and radon attenuation layer. The proposed cover
system does not contain a biobarrier (e.g. cobble layer) to minimize potential intrusion by plant
roots or burrowing animals. The proposed cover system is designed to minimize both plant root
and burrowing animal intrusion through the use of thick layers of soil cover in combination with a
highly compacted layer placed at a depth that is below the expected rooting and burrowing
depths among species that may inhabit the site. The thickness of the cover, the use of a highly
compacted radon attenuation layer located at a depth between 122 and 197 cm, and a final 75
cm layer below the compacted zone will all contribute to minimizing any biointrusion through the
cover. Considering the plant species that may inhabit that tailing cells and the thickness and
physical nature of the cover, it is not anticipated that root growth will extend below 122 cm or
into the very top portion of the highly compacted zone.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-7 September 2011
The plant species that are proposed for establishment on the cover system are characterized by
rooting depths that are far less than the depth of the biointrusion and radon attenuation layers
that extend to a depth of 6.5 feet (197 cm) (15 cm of topsoil-gravel over 107 cm of a water
storage/biointrusion layer over a 75 cm radon attenuation layer). Table D-3 lists the plant
species proposed for establishment along with their maximum rooting depths obtained from the
literature.

The species with the deepest rooting system is pubescent wheatgrass, with a maximum rooting
depth of 185 cm. It is highly unlikely that this species or any other species will root below a
depth of 122 cm, which is the combined depth of the erosion protection layer and the
biointrusion layer. Root growth into the highly compacted radon attenuation layer that begins at
a depth of 122 cm will be restricted because of the high density of this material (95% Standard
Proctor). In addition, both root density and the size of roots decrease at a rapid rate with rooting
depth, further decreasing the potential for root growth into the compacted radon attenuation
layer of the cover system.

Table D-3. Rooting Depths for Species Proposed for Establishment on the Cover System
Scientific Name Common Name Rooting Depth (cm)
Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass 109a
Pseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass 122b
Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass 109a
Elymus lanceolatus Streambank wheatgrass 165c
Elymus elymoides Squirreltail 30d
Thinopyrum intermedium Pubescent wheatgrass 185a
Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass 84e
Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass 45f
Festuca ovina Sheep fescue 56b
Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama 119e
Achillea millefolium Common yarrow 105f
Artemisia ludoviciana White sage 20d
aWyatt et al., 1980; bWeaver and Clements, 1938; cCoupland and Johnson, 1965;dFoxx and Tierney,
1987; eSpence, 1937; fUSDA, 2011

Table D-4 illustrates the reduction in root mass with depth for two of the species proposed for
establishment on the cover system. Both western wheatgrass and blue grama have very little
root mass in the 90 to 120 cm depth and no root mass below 120 cm. The root architecture of
these two species is typical of grasses found in semi-arid environments and are representative
of the all species proposed for establishment.

Table D-4. Percent of Root Mass by Depth for Two of the Proposed Species for
Establishment of the Cover System*
Species 0-30 cm 30-60 cm 60-90 cm 90-120 cm 120-150 cm
Western wheatgrass 65 14 12 9 0
Blue grama 94 4 1 1 0
*Weaver 1954

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-8 September 2011
In addition to the information presented on root architecture above, the following provides
further documentation of rooting depths and root distribution or root density by depth. Six
primary publications were used to estimate root densities by depth for the plant community that
would establish on the cover system, including: Hopkins (1953), Bartos and Sims (1974), Sims
and Singh (1978), Lee and Lauenroth (1994), Jackson et al. (1996), and Gill et al. (1999). Table
D-5 presents an estimate of effective root densities by depth for the proposed cover system.

Table D-5. Root Densities for Species Expected to Occur on the Cover System
Depth (cm) Root Density (grams cm-3)
0-15 1.9
15-30 6.2
30-45 1.7
45-60 0.8
60-75 0.6
75-90 0.6
90-105 0.4
105-120 0.2
120-135 0.0

D.5.2 Animal Intrusion

Based on a review of the wildlife survey data from the 1978 Environmental Report produced for
the White Mesa site (Dames and Moore, 1978), and a thorough literature review of burrowing
depths and biointrusion studies, the maximum depth of on-site burrowing would be
approximately one meter or slightly over three feet. Wildlife survey data for the site indicate that
burrowing mammals include deer mice, kangaroo rats, chipmunks, desert cottontails, blacktailed
jackrabbits, and prairie dogs. Other burrowing mammals, such as pocket gophers and badgers
have not been observed in the area of the White Mesa site (Dames and Moore, 1978). Of the
list of burrowing mammals that may occur on the site, the prairie dog is the species capable of
burrowing to the greatest depth. Studies by Shuman and Whicker (1986) and Cline et al. (1982)
conducted in southeast Wyoming, Grand Junction, Colorado and Hanford, Washington,
document maximum burrowing depths of prairie dogs between 60 and 100 cm. Based on this
empirical data and the potential species that may use the site as habitat, any burrowing activity
that may occur would be limited to about 100 cm below ground surface. In addition, prairie dog
habitat is characterized by low plant cover and vegetation that is short in vertical stature
(Holechek et al. 1998). The potential for prairie dogs colonizing the tailing cells is very low
because plant cover and stature will not match their habitat requirements.

Table D-6 presents the range of burrowing depths and burrow densities for the animal species
that presently frequent or could be expected to frequent the site or the site vicinity. Burrowing
depths are well documented in the literature, but burrow density is highly variable depending
upon geographic location, specific habitat conditions and population sizes. The burrowing
densities presented in the table below are estimates based on a broad search through the
published literature and adjusting those densities based on home range and the conditions that
would be expected on the cover system.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-9 September 2011
Table D-6. Burrowing Depths and Estimated Burrow Densities for Animal Species that
Presently Frequent or could be Expected to Frequent the Site or the Site Vicinity
Species Burrowing depths (cm) Burrowing density (#/acre)
Deer mice 10-30a 10 to 30g
Kangaroo rats 20-30b 2 to 6h,i
Chipmunks 60-90c 1 to 3j
Desert cottontail 15-25d 1 to 2k
Blacktailed jackrabbit 3-11e Depressions rather than burrows
Prairie dog 60-100f 0l
aLaundre and Reynolds 1993; bWhitaker 1980; cCaras 1967; dIngles 1941; eBest 1996; fShuman and
Whicker 1986; gWeber and Hoekstra 2009; hCross and Waser 2000; iFields et al. 1999; jVanHorne et
al. 1997; kNevada DOW 2011; lPrairie dog colonization is not expected to occur on site.

D.6 EFFECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The potential occurrence of deep-rooted plants or deep-burrowing animals as a result of future
climate change is impossible to predict with any certainty. There are many climate change
scenarios for the western U.S., based on general circulation models that range from climates
that are wetter and cooler to drier and warmer. Most climate models predict warmer
temperatures in the future but are inconsistent in terms of precipitation. A warmer and drier
climate would have much different effects on vegetation than a warmer and wetter climate. In
addition, higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere may lead to higher plant productivity
as a result of higher water use efficiency. Finally, a shift in the timing of precipitation would also
influence plant community composition, as an increase in summer precipitation would favor C4
grasses, while an increase in winter precipitation would favor C3 species.

In a study by Owensby et al. (1999) the effect of increased CO2 was studied under
environments of both higher and lower precipitation. In every year of the study, CO2-enriched
plots contained greater amounts of soil moisture than plots exposed to ambient CO2
concentrations, suggesting that CO2-enriched prairie ecosystems would have greater amounts
of water at their disposal to cope with the adverse consequences of water stress. Indeed, long-
term atmospheric CO2 enrichment significantly increased both above- and belowground
biomass in years of below average rainfall, while having little or no impact on growth during
relatively wet years.

Elevated CO2 did not affect the basal coverage or species composition of the ecosystem's major
C4 grasses during the eight-year study, contrary to one popular view, which suggests the
replacement of C4 species by typically more CO2-responsive C3 species. However, C3 cool-
season grasses and C3 forbs did increase in basal cover and species composition, but it was at
the expense of a reduction in the amount of C3 cool-season grasses.

As the CO2 content of the air continues to rise, it is likely that grasslands will maintain a more
favorable water status when subjected to periodic moisture stress resulting from less-than-
average amounts of annual precipitation. In addition, it is likely that biodiversity in these
grasslands will be maintained as the atmospheric CO2 concentration increases; for the prairie
grassland that was studied, the assemblages and abundances of C4 species did not change in
response to elevated CO2. Thus, it is not likely that C4 species will be displaced by more
photosynthetically CO2-responsive C3 species.

In conclusion, the occurrence of a warmer climate in southeastern Utah, with an increase in
atmospheric CO2 that might exist during the required performance period (200 – 1,000 years) is
not expected to substantially change the established plant community, regardless of either a

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-10 September 2011
corresponding decrease or increase in precipitation. The community should remain grass
dominated with some shift in dominance among warm and cool season species. In addition, it
is not expected that a change in climate within the required performance period would lead to a
change in small mammal presence or in burrowing activity.

D.7 SOIL REQUIREMENTS FOR SUSTAINABLE PLANT GROWTH

There are two key components to establishing an ET cover with a sustainable plant community.
The first is to select long-lived species that are adapted to the environmental conditions of the
site. The second is to provide a cover soil that will function as an effective plant growth medium
over the long term by supplying plants with adequate amounts of water, nutrients and rooting
volume.

There are a number of soil characteristics that are particularly important to achieve long-term
sustainability in semiarid environments and include the following: pH, electrical conductivity
(EC), sodium levels, percent organic matter, texture, bulk density, cation exchange capacity,
macronutrient concentrations, available water holding capacity, and soil microorganisms. Table
D-7 presents levels for most of these soil properties that are considered necessary for long-term
sustained plant growth. In addition, the table includes soil property levels from soil samples of
potential cover soil collected from stock piles at the White Mesa Site in May 2009.

The soil properties of the potential cover soil that are acceptable for sustaining long-term plant
growth include: pH, EC, sodium adsorption ratio (SAR), percent clay content, and extractable
phosphorus. Those soil properties that appear to be deficient and would need improvement
include: percent organic matter, total nitrogen, and extractable potassium.

Cation exchange capacity was not measured in the potential cover soil, but it is believed that the
cover soil will have an acceptable level for sustained plant growth based on the percent clay
content and a recommendation that an organic matter amendment be added to the soil during
the reclamation process. Bulk density of the emplaced cover material will be specified in the
cover design and will be controlled during the construction process to be within the sustainability
range shown in Table D-5.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-11 September 2011
Table D-7. Soil Properties and their Range of Values Important for Sustainable Plant
Growth, Along with Analytical Results of Soil Available for ET Cover Construction at the
White Mesa Mill Site
Soil Property Level for
Sustainability Reference Levels for
On-Site Soil
pH (units) 6.6 to 8.4 Munshower (1994) 7.7 to 8.1
EC (mmhos/cm) ≤4.0 Munshower (1994) <1.5
Sodium adsorption ratio ≤12 Munshower (1994) <0.5
Organic matter (%) 1.5 to 3.0 Brady (1974) 0 to 0.4
Texture (%) 35 to 50% clay Brady (1974) 36 to 50% clay
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.2 to 1.8 Brady (1974) 1.59 to 1.99†
Water holding capacity
(cm H2O/cm soil)
0.08 to 0.16 Brady (1974) 0.084-0.14†
Cation exchange capacity
(meq/100g)
5 to 30 Munshower (1994) Not measured
Total nitrogen (%) 0.05 to 0.5 Harding (1954) 0.02 to 0.05
Extractable phosphorus
(mg/kg)
6 to 11 Ludwick and Rogers
(1976)
10 to 57
Extractable potassium
(mg/kg)
60 to 120 Ludwick and Rogers
(1976)
11 to 36
†Calculated values

In order for the potential cover soil to function as a normal soil and provide long-term
sustainable support for the vegetation component of the ET cover, it will be amended to improve
organic matter content, nitrogen and potassium levels. An organic matter amendment will also
improve available water holding capacity and cation exchange capacity. The source of organic
matter will depend upon availability in the region and could either be composted biosolids or a
commercial organic amendment such as Biosol®. An organic matter amendment will also
provide a source of soil microorganisms that will function to cycle nutrients over time and ensure
sustainable plant growth.

D.8 ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPOSED SPECIES

Important ecological characteristics for each species proposed for reclamation are provided in
the paragraphs that follow. Species information was obtained from Monsen et al. (2004),
Alderson and Sharp (1994), Wasser (1982), and Thornburg (1982). The proposed species are
adapted to the elevation (5,600 feet), precipitation (13 inches per year on average), and soil
textural ranges (loam to sandy clay) that are well within the environmental conditions of the
White Mesa Site. Table D-8 presents a summary of the ecological characteristics discussed in
the following paragraphs.

Western wheatgrass, variety Arriba (Pascopyrum smithii)
Western wheatgrass is a native, rhizomatous, long-lived perennial cool season grass. It
grows well in a 10 to 14 inch mean annual precipitation zone and is adapted to a wide range
of soil textural classes at elevation ranges up to 9,000 feet. Western wheatgrass has been
an important species for restoring mining related disturbances, for erosion control and for
critical area stabilization in semiarid regions because of its ease of establishment and ability
to grow successfully in pure or mixed stands of both warm and cool season species.
Western wheatgrass is fire tolerant and regenerates readily following burning. The variety of
Arriba is known for rapidly establishing seedlings and high seed production. The

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-12 September 2011
combination of its ability to spread vegetatively and reproduce by seed ensures long-term
sustainability of this species.

Bluebunch wheatgrass, variety Goldar (Pseudoroegneria spicata)
Bluebunch wheatgrass is a native, cool season perennial bunch grass. Bluebunch
wheatgrass grows on soils that vary in texture, depth and parent material. It is one of the
most important and productive grasses found in sagebrush communities in the
intermountain west. Bluebunch wheatgrass is fire tolerant and regenerates vegetatively
following burning. This species is well adapted to a 12 to 14 inch mean annual precipitation
range and is considered to be highly drought resistant. Bluebunch wheatgrass performs
well in mixtures with other species and grows at elevations up to 10,000 feet.

Slender wheatgrass, variety San Luis (Elymus trachycaulus)
Slender wheatgrass is a native, cool season, perennial bunch grass that occasional
produces rhizomes. It is a short-lived species (5 to 10 years) but it reseeds and spreads
well by natural seeding, exceeding most other wheatgrasses in this characteristic. Slender
wheatgrass can serve as an important pioneer species; its seedlings are vigorous and
capable of establishing on harsh sites. In addition, it is able to establish and compete with
weedy species. Slender wheatgrass is commonly seeded in mixtures with other grasses
and forbs to restore disturbances and rehabilitate native communities. It is adapted to a
wide variety of sites and is moderately drought tolerant. It performs best at sites with an
annual precipitation of 15 inches or more, but can grow on sites with precipitation levels as
low as 13 inches.

Streambank wheatgrass, variety Sodar (Elymus lanceolatus ssp. psammophilus)
Streambank wheatgrass is considered to be part of the thickspike wheatgrass (Elymus
lanceolatus ssp. lanceolatus) taxa. Variety Sodar is a native, perennial sod grass that is
highly rhizomatous and adapted to the western intermountain area. It is highly drought
tolerant and performs well in mean annual precipitation ranges between 11 and 18 inches.
It grows on a wide range of soil textures, from sandy to clayey. Streambank wheatgrass is
commonly used in mine land reclamation and is best known for its ability to control erosion
and compete with annual weeds. Its highly rhizomatous nature ensures long-term
sustainability of this species.

Pubescent wheatgrass, variety Luna (Thinopyrum intermedium ssp. barbulatum)
Pubescent wheatgrass is a long-lived sod forming perennial introduced from Eurasia. It is
highly drought tolerant and grows where the mean annual precipitation is 12 inches or more.
It is adapted to a wide range of soil textures, from sand to clay. Pubescent wheatgrass is a
highly persistent species, should be seeded at low densities to avoid competition with native
species and has been found to be effective in reducing the establishment of woody plants.

Indian ricegrass, variety Paloma (Achnatherum hymenoides)
Indian ricegrass is a native, cool season, perennial bunchgrass with a highly fibrous root
system. Indian ricegrass is one of the most common grasses on semiarid lands in the west
and is one of the most drought tolerant species used in mine land reclamation. It generally
occurs on sandy soils, but is found on soils ranging from sandy to heavy clays. It grows
from 2,000 to 10,000 feet in areas where the mean annual precipitation is 6 to 16 inches.
Indian ricegrass is slow to establish, but highly persistent once it becomes established.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-13 September 2011
Sandberg bluegrass, variety Canbar (Poa secunda)
Sandberg bluegrass is a native, cool season perennial bunchgrass that is adapted to all soil
textures and is highly resistant to fire damage. Sandberg bluegrass is one of the more
common early-season bunchgrasses in the Intermountain area. It grows at elevations from
1,000 to 12,000 feet and can be successfully established in areas with a mean annual
precipitation of 12 inches or more. Established plants are not overly competitive, and
therefore highly compatible with other native species.

Sheep fescue, variety Covar (Festuca ovina)
Sheep fescue is a short, mat-forming native perennial that grows well on infertile soils in
areas with a mean annual precipitation of 10 to 14 inches. It is long-lived and highly drought
tolerant. Sheep fescue is a cool season species that greens up early in the spring. The
proposed variety, Covar, was introduced from Turkey and is commonly used in mine land
reclamation for long-term stabilization and erosion control. This variety was selected
because plants are persistent, winter hardy, and drought tolerant.

Squirreltail, variety Toe Jam Creek (Elymus elymoides)
Squirreltail is a short-lived perennial that is selected for its ability to establish quickly and to
effectively compete with undesirable annual grasses. It grows along an elevation range
from 2,000 to 11,000 feet and on all soil textures in mean annual precipitations zones of 8 to
15 inches. Squirreltail is fairly tolerant of fire because of its small size.

Blue grama, variety Hachita (Bouteloua gracilis)
Blue grama is a low-growing perennial warm season bunchgrass. Blue grama produces an
efficient, widely spreading root system that is mostly concentrated near the soil surface.
Blue grama is adapted to a variety of soil types, but does best on well-drained soils and
once established, is highly drought tolerant. This species is commonly found with cool-
season species and is highly compatible with other native perennials.

Common yarrow (Achillea millefolium)
Yarrow is a common native forb species that is rhizomatous and found growing from valley
bottoms to timberline. It is commonly used in mine land reclamation, establishes easily from
seed and is highly persistent. It grows on a variety of soil textures and found in a mean
annual precipitation range between 13 and 18 inches.

White sage, variety Summit (Artemisia ludoviciana)
White sage is considered to be a pioneer rhizomatous forb species that establishes quickly
on disturbed sites and is highly compatible with perennial grasses. It does best on well-
drained soils, but can be found growing on a wide range of soil textures. It is adapted to
sites above 5,000 feet in elevation and to sites with a mean annual precipitation above 12
inches.

This group of species will establish into a grass-forb community that is expected to remain
dominated by grasses throughout the required performance period (200—1,000 years). The
plant community is not expected to show successional changes because of the competitive
nature of the established species and their adaptation to the elevation, climate and soil
conditions found at the White Mesa Mill Site. Even with potential changes in climate over time,
the expectation is for the community to remain a grassland.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-14 September 2011
Table D-8. Summary of Ecological Characteristics of Plant Species Proposed for the ET Cover at the White Mesa Mill Site
Sp
e
c
i
e
s

Or
i
g
i
n

An
n
u
a
l

o
r

Pe
r
e
n
n
i
a
l

Me
t
h
o
d

o
f

S
p
r
e
a
d

Ea
s
e

o
f

Es
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
m
e
n
t
a
Co
m
p
a
t
i
b
i
l
i
t
y

w
i
t
h

Ot
h
e
r

S
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
Lo
n
g
e
v
i
t
y
a
An
n
u
a
l

Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n

Ra
n
g
e

(
i
n
c
h
e
s
)

El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

R
a
n
g
e

(f
e
e
t
)

So
i
l

T
e
x
t
u
r
e
b
R
o
o
t
i
n
g

D
e
p
t
h

(c
m
)

So
i
l

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
Dr
o
u
g
h
t

To
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
a
Fi
r
e

T
o
l
e
r
a
n
c
e
a
Western
wheatgrass Native Perennial Vegetative 4 3 4 10-14 ≤9,000 S,C,L 109 4 4 4
Bluebunch
wheatgrass Native Perennial Seed 4 4 4 12-14 ≤10,000 S,C,L 122 4 4 4
Slender
wheatgrass Native Perennial Seed 4 4 2 13-18 ≤10,000 S,C,L 109 2 2 2
Streambank
wheatgrass Native Perennial Vegetative 4 4 4 11-18 ≤10,000 S,C,L 165 4 4 3
Pubescent
wheatgrass Introduced Perennial Vegetative 4 2 4 12-18 ≤10,000 S,C,L 185 4 4 3
Indian
ricegrass Native Perennial Seed 3 4 4 6-16 ≤10,000 S,L 84 2 4 2
Sandberg
bluegrass Native Perennial Seed 4 4 4 12-18 ≤12,000 S,C,L 45 2 3 4
Sheep
fescue

Native Perennial Seed 4 2 4 10-14 ≤11,000 S,C, L 56 3 4 2
Squirreltail
Native Perennial Seed 3 4 3 8-15 ≤11,000 S,C,L 30 2 4 3
Blue grama
Native Perennial Vegetative 2 4 4 10-16 ≤10,000 S,L 119 4 4 4
Common
yarrow Native Perennial Vegetative 4 3 4 13-18 ≤11,000 S,C,L 105 4 3 2
White sage
Native Perennial Vegetative 4 4 4 12-18 ≥5,000 S,C,L 20 3 3 2
aKey to Ratings—4 = Excellent, 3 = Good, 2 = Fair, 1 = Poor; bSoil Texture Codes—S = Sand, C = Clay, L = Loam

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-15 September 2011
D.9 REFERENCES

Alderson, J. and W.C. Sharp, 1994. Grass Varieties in the United States. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 170. Washington, D.C.

Bartos, D. and P. Sims, 1974. Root dynamics of a shortgrass ecosystem. J. of Range
Management 27:33-36.

Brady, N. C., 1974. The Nature and Property of Soils. 8th ed. MacMillian Press. New York, NY.

Best, T. L., 1996. Lepus californicus. Mammalian Species. No. 530. Pp. 1-10. American
Society of Mamologists.

Cline, J. F., F. G. Burton, d. A. Cataldo, W. E. Shiens, and K. A. Gano, 1982. Long-term
biobarriers to plant and animal intrusions of uranium mill tailings. Rep. PNL-4340. Pacific
Northwest Lab. Richland, WA.

Cooke, R. V. and A. Warren, 1973. Geomorphology in Deserts. University of California Press.
Berkeley, CA.

Coupland, R. T. and R. E. Johnson, 1965. Rooting characteristics of native grassland species
in Saskatchewan. J. of Ecology 53:475-507.

Cross, C. L. and P. M. Waser, 2000. Estimating populations size in the banner-tailed kangaroo
rat. Southwestern Naturalist 45:176-183.

Dames and Moore, 1978. Environmental Report—White Mesa Uranium Project, San Juan
County, Utah. Prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc.

DePuit, E. J., 1982. Cool-season perennial grass establishment on Northern Great Plains
mined lands: status of current technology. Pages B1-B24 In Proceedings: Symposium on
surface Coal Mining and Reclamation in the Northern Great Plains. Montana Agricultural
Experiment Station Research Report 194. Bozeman, MT.

DePuit, E.J., 1988. Productivity of reclaimed lands—rangeland. Pages 93-129 In Hossner,
Lloyd (ed.) Reclamation of Surface-Mined Lands Vol II. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL.

DePuit, E. J., J. G. Coenenberg, and C. L. Skilbred, 1980. Establishment of diverse native plant
communities on coal surface mined lands in Montana as influenced by seeding method,
mixture and rate. Montana Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 163.
Bozeman, MT.

DePuit, E. J., J. G. Coenenberg, and W. H. Willmuth, 1978. Research on Revegetation of
Surface Mined Lands at Coalstrip Montana: Progress Report 1975—1977 Res. Rep. 127.
Montana Agricultural Experiments Station, Bozeman, MT.

Desmond, M. J., 2004. Effects of grazing practices and fossorial rodents on a winter avain
community in Chihuahua Mexico. Biological Conservation 116:235-242.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-16 September 2011
Desmond, M. J., J. A. Savidge, and K. M. Eskridge, 2000. Correlations between burrowing owl
and black-tailed prairie dog declines: A 7 year analysis. J. of Wildlife Management
67:1067-1075.

Ellison, L., 1960. Influence of grazing on plant succession of rangeland. Botanical Review
26:1-78.

Fang, H., S. Liang, J.R. Townshend and R. Dickenson, 2008. Spatially and temporally
continuous LAI data sets based on integrated filtering method: Examples from North
America. Remote Sensing of Environment 112:75-93.

Fields, M. J., D. P. Coffin, and J. R. Gosz, 1999. Burrowing activities of kangaroo rats and
patterns in plant species dominance at a shortgrass steppe-desert grassland ecotone. J. of
Vegetation Science. 10:123-130.

Foxx, T. S. and G. D. Tierney, 1987. Rooting patterns in the pinyon-juniper woodland. pp. 69-79 In
Everett, R. L. (ed.). Proceedings—Pinyon-Juniper Conference. USDA Forest Service.
Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report INT-215.

Gill, R., I. Burke, D. Milchunas and W. Lauenroth, 1999. Relationship between root biomass
and soil organic matter pools in the shortgrass steppe of Eastern Colorado. Ecosystems
2:226-236.

Greene, R. A. and C. Reynard, 1932. The influence of two burrowing rodents, Dipodomys
spectabillis (kangaroo rate) and Neotoma albigula (pack rat) on desert soils in Arizona.
Ecology 13:73-80.

Groeneveld, D., 1997. Vertical point quadrat sampling and an extinction factor to calculate leaf
area index. J. of Arid Environments. 36:475-485.

Harding, R. B., 1954. Surface accumulation of nitrates and other soluble salts in California orange
orchards. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings. 18:369-372.

Hendricks, D.M., 1991. Genesis and classification of arid region soils. Pages 33-79 In Skujins, J.
(ed.) Semiarid Lands and Deserts. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, NY.

Holechek, J.L., R.D. Pieper, and C.H. Herbel, 1998. Range Management Principles and Practices.
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Hopkins, H., 1953. Root development of grasses on revegetated land. J. of Range
Management 6:382-92.

Ingles, L. D., 1941. Natural history of the Audubon cottontail. J. Mammal 22:227-250.

Jackson, R., J. Canadell, J. Ehleringer, H. Mooney, O. Salsa and E. Schulze, 1996. A global
analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108:389-411.

Johnson, W. C. and S. K. Collinge, 2004. Landscape effects on black-tailed prairie dog colonies.
Biological Conservation 115:487-497.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-17 September 2011
Laundre, J. W., 1989. Horizontal and vertical diameter of burrows of 5 small mammal species in
southeastern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 49:646-649.

Laundre, J. W., 1993. Effects of small mammal burrows on water infiltration in a cool desert
environment. Oecologia 94:43-48.

Laundre, J. W. and T. D. Reynolds, 1993. Effects of soil structure on burrow characteristics of
five small mammal species. Great Basin Naturalist 53:358-366.

Lee, C. A. and W. K. Lauenroth, 1994. Spatial distributions of grass and shrub root systems in the
shortgrass steppe. The American Midland Naturalist 132:117-123.

Lenth, B. E., R. L. Knight, and M. E. Brennan, 2008. The effects of Dogs on wildlife
communities. Natural Areas Journal 28:218-227.

Ludwick, A. E. and J. R. Rogers, 1976. Soil test explanation. 502 Service in Action. Colorado
State University Agricultural Extension Service. Fort Collins, CO.

Monsen, S.B., R. Stevens and N.L. Shaw, 2004. Restoring Western Ranges and Wildlands. U.S.
Department of Agriculture. Forest Service. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-136-vol 1-3.
Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO.

Munshower, F., 1994. Practical Handbook of Disturbed Land Revegetation. CRC Press. Boca
Raton, FL.

Nevada Department of Wildlife. ndow.org/wild/animals/facts/rabbitscottontail.shtm. Accessed
on 12 July 2011.

Newman, G. J. And E. F. Redente, 2001. Long-term plant community development as
influenced by revegetation techniques. J. Range Manage. 54:717-724.

Owensby, C.E., Ham, J.M., Knapp, A.K. and Auen, L.M., 1999. Biomass production and
species composition change in a tallgrass prairie ecosystem after long-term exposure to
elevated atmospheric CO2. Global Change Biology 5: 497-506.

Paschke, M. W., E. F. Redente, and S. L. Brown, 2003. Biology and establishment of mountain
shrubs on mining disturbances in the Rocky Mountains, USA. Land Degradation &
Development 14:459-480.

Plummer, A.P., D.R. Christensen, and S.B. Monsen, 1968. Restoring Big-Game Range in Utah.
Utah Division of Fish and Game. Publication No. 68-3. Utah Division of Fish and Game,
Ephraim, UT.

Redente, E. F., T. B. Doerr, C. E. Grygiel, and M. E. Biondini, 1984. Vegetation establishment
and succession on disturbed soils in northwest Colorado. Reclamation and Revegetation
Research 3:153-166.

Scurlock, J. M. O., G. P. Asner, and S. T. Gower, 2001. Worldwide Historical Estimates of Leaf
Area Index, 1932-2000. Oakridge National Laboratory. ORNL/TM-2001/268.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
D-18 September 2011
Shuman, R. and F. W. Whicker, 1986. Intrusion of reclaimed uranium mill tailings by prairie
dogs and ground squirrels. J. Environmental Quality 15:21-24.

Sims, Phillip and J. S. Singh, 1978. The structure and function of ten western North American
grasslands. J. of Ecology 66:573-597.

Spence, L. E., 1937. Root studies of important range plants of the Boise River watershed. J. of
Forestry 35:747-754.

Sydnor, R.S. and E.F. Redente, 2000. Long-term plant community development on topsoil
treatments overlying a phytotoxic growth medium. J. Environmental Quality 29:1778-1786.

Thornburg, A.A., 1982. Plant Materials for Use on Surface-Mined Lands in Arid and Semiarid
Regions. USDA. Soil Conservation Service. SCS-TP-157. EPA-600/7-79-134. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

USDA. 2009. http://plants.USDA.gov. Accessed on 12 July 2011.

VanHorne, B., R. L. Schooley, S. T. Knick, G. S. Olson, and K. P. Burnham, 1997. Use of
burrow entrances to indicate densities of Townsend’s ground squirrels. J. of Wildlife
Management 61:92-101.

Wasser, C.H., 1982. Ecology and Culture of Selected Species Useful in Revegetating Disturbed
Lands in the West. U.S. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-82/56.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

Waugh, W. J., M. K. Kastens, L. R. L. Sheader, C. H. Benson, W. H. Albright, and P. S. Mushovic,
2008. Monitoring the performance of an alternative landfill cover at the Monticello, Utah,
Uranium Mill Tailings Disposal Site. Proceedings of the Waste Management 2008 Symposium.
Phoenix, AZ.

Weaver, J. E., 1954. North American Prairie. Johnsen Publishing Company. Lincoln, NE.

Weaver, J. E. and F. E. Clements, 1938. Plant Ecology. 2nd Edition. McGraw-Hill. New York,
NY.

Wyatt, J. W., D. J. Dollhopf, and W. M. Schafer, 1980. Root distribution in 1 to 48 year old
stripmine spoils in southeastern Montana. J. Range Management 33:101-104.

SLO
APP
OPE STA
PENDIX E

ABILITY A
Update
E
ANALYSIS
ed Tailings Co
S
over Design RReport

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
E-1 September 2011
E.1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents the methods, input and results of slope stability analyses of the tailings
cells at the Denison Mines (USA) Corp.’s (Denison) White Mesa Uranium Mill (Mill). The Mill is
located approximately 6.0 miles south of Blanding, Utah. These analyses were conducted
according to applicable stability criteria under static and seismic conditions, including
geotechnical stability criteria in NRC (2003).

Slope stability analyses were performed using limit equilibrium methods with the aid of the
computer program SLOPE/W (GEO-SLOPE, 2007). The SLOPE/W program calculates factors
of safety by any of the following methods: (1) Ordinary Fellenius, (2) Bishop’s Simplified, (3)
Janbu’s Simplified, (4) Spencer, (5) Morgenstern-Price, (6) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (7)
Lowe-Karafiath, and (8) Generalized Limit Equilibrium. The Morgenstern-Price method
(Morgenstern and Price, 1965) with a half-sine function for inter-slice forces was selected for
performing the computations in SLOPE/W. The method uses both circular and non-circular
shear surfaces and satisfies both moment and force equilibrium.

E.2 CRITICAL CONDITIONS AND GEOMETRY
Slope stability analyses are typically conducted for scenarios that represent the critical
conditions for construction and operation. For the White Mesa Mill tailings cells, critical
conditions for post-reclamation were evaluated and included: (1) reclaimed outside surfaces of
the embankment with a 5H:1V slope, (2) existing inside surfaces of the embankments with a
2H:1V slope; (3) conservative shear strength parameters based on previous reports. The
embankment cross section was assumed to be fully drained and therefore the phreatic surface
was not included in the analyses.

A critical cross section was cut through the southern dike of Cell 4A near the southeast corner
of the impoundment. The cross section location was selected based on overall impoundment
height as well as base topography and is similar to the location used for the slope stability
analyses presented in Titan (1996). The location of the cross section is shown in Figure E.1.

Slope stability analyses were performed by calculating factors of safety along circular failure
surfaces for both static and pseudo-static conditions. Circular failure surface analyses were
conducted by targeting deeper, full-slope failures as opposed to shallower, superficial failures. A
number of failure surfaces were analyzed in order to calculate the factor of safety for the critical
failure.

E.3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES
Material strength parameters used for the slope stability analysis are the same as the
parameters presented in Denison (2009) for the Cell 4B slope stability analyses conducted by
Geosyntec. The strength parameters for each material are discussed below and summarized in
Table E.1.

Cover, Dike, and Foundation: The cover material will be obtained from the existing material at
the site and therefore will have the same strength parameters as the previously-constructed
dike and the existing foundation material underlying the dike. The strength parameters for this
material was developed using triaxial test results from samples obtained from borings through
the existing berm between Cell 4A and 4B.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
E-2 September 2011
Tailings Material: Based on existing operations at the site, the tailings deposits behind the
dike are primarily fine sands with silt and some clay. The strength parameters of the tailings
were conservatively estimated using the Naval Design Manual for Soil Mechanics DM7-01
(NAVFAC, 1986) as a 0% relative density silty sand.

Bedrock: Failures are not anticipated to occur within the bedrock underlying the embankment.
Therefore, the material properties for the bedrock were modelled as those consistent with
impenetrable bedrock.

Table E.1. Material Strength Parameters
Material Unit Weight
(pcf)
Cohesion
(psf) Internal Friction Angle
Cover
137 900 26° Dike
Foundation
Tailings 125 0 25°
Bedrock 130 10,000 45°

E.4 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND SEISMICITY
Stability analyses under seismic conditions were conducted as pseudo-static analyses, where a
horizontal acceleration or seismic coefficient is applied to the cross-section. This seismic
coefficient represents the horizontal forces applied on the structure by an earthquake. A
coefficient of 0.1 g was used for the analyses based on the most recent seismic hazard analysis
conducted for the site (Tetra Tech, 2010). This seismic coefficient represents the seismic
loading for the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) calculated to occur during the long-term
life of the embankment. A summary of the site seismicity and selection of the seismic
coefficient is provided in more detail below. The Tetra Tech (2020) seismic study is also
provided as Attachment E.1 to this appendix, for ease of reference.

Seismicity. Seismicity of the White Mesa site has been investigated in two previous reports.
The original design report for Cell 4 was prepared in 1988 by UMETCO. The geologic
conditions and the potential seismic hazards were characterized in that report. In 2006 an
additional seismic study was prepared by Tetra Tech, formerly MFG, to recommend a design
peak ground acceleration (PGA) to use during the operational period for the design of Cell 4A at
the site. The design Peak Ground Acceleration for Cell 4 was determined to be 0.09 g based on
the 2002 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM) with a 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years. The report concluded that the seismic loading of 0.1 g used in the
analysis of Cell 4A associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance within 50 years was
appropriate for the operational life of the disposal cell (Tetra Tech, 2006).

Tetra Tech completed an additional seismic hazard analysis in 2010. Using the most recent
USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM, 2008), with a 10,000 year return period, and the
probability of exceedance of 2% for a 200-year design life, Tetra Tech determined that the Peak
Ground Acceleration (PGA) for the site to be 0.15 g. Based on the most current USGS
Geological Survey Earthquake Hazards Program National Maps (2008), and using the
attenuation relationship of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007), this PGA of 0.15 g is reasonable for
the White Mesa site. The peak acceleration of 0.15 g was therefore used for seismic stability
analyses of the tailings impoundments (Tetra Tech, 2010).

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
E-3 September 2011
Seismic coefficient. A liquefaction analysis was conducted for the tailings and is presented in
Appendix F. The results indicate the tailings are not susceptible to earthquake-induced
liquefaction. For materials that do not liquefy or lose shear strength with seismic shaking,
seismic slope stability is analyzed by a pseudo-static approach. This consists of application of
an equivalent horizontal acceleration or seismic coefficient to the structure being analyzed
(described in Seed, 1979). The seismic coefficient represents an inertial force due to strong
ground motions during the design earthquake, and is represented as a fraction of the PGA at
the site (typically at the base of the structure). Tetra Tech (2010) recommended using a value
of 0.1 g for the seismic coefficient in accordance with IBC (2006) recommendations to multiply
the PGA by 0.667 to determine a design acceleration value. The strategy of representing the
seismic coefficient as a fraction of the PGA has been adopted in review of uranium tailings
facility design and documented in DOE (1989). A value of 0.667 typically represents post-
reclamation conditions. Based on this guidance and the recommendations in Tetra Tech
(2010), the seismic coefficient used for the pseudo-static stability analysis was 0.1 g.

E.5 DISCUSSION OF STABILITY ANALYSIS RESULTS
The results of stability analyses for Cross-section A are presented in Table E.2. These values
represent the lowest calculated factor of safety from a number of individual failure surfaces for a
Morgenstern-Price Analysis involving circular failure.

Table E.2. Slope Stability Analysis Results
Required FOS
Static Condition
Calculated FOS
Static Condition
Required FOS
Pseudo-Static
Condition
Calculated FOS
Pseudo-Static
Condition
1.5 4.30 1.1 2.82
Note: FOS = factor of safety

As shown in Table E.2, all calculated factors of safety were significantly above the NRC
recommended values of 1.5 for static conditions and 1.1 for pseudo-static conditions. The
SLOPE/W output figures for static and pseudo-static loading conditions are provided in
Attachment E.2.

E.6 REFERENCES
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 2007. NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric
Mean Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectra Ground Motion Parameters. In Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report. 2007/02, 246 p.

Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (Denison), 2009. Cell 4B Lining System Design Report,
Response to Division of Radiation Control (“DRC”) Request of Additional Information –
Round 1 interrogatory, Cell 4B Design, Exhibit A, Geosyntec Slope Stability Analysis
Calculation Package. January 9.

GEO-SLOPE International Ltd, 2007. Slope/W, Version 7.17, Calgary, Alberta.

International Building Code, 2006. International Code council, Inc.
Morgenstern, N.R., and V.E. Price, 1965. The Analysis of the Stability of General Slip Surfaces.
Geotechnique, Vol. 15, pp. 79-93.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
E-4 September 2011
Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), 1986. Soil Mechanics Design Manual 7.01.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2003. “Standard Review Plan for the Review of a
Reclamation Plan for the Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act.” NUREG-1620. Division of Waste Management, June.

Tetra Tech, Inc. (formerly MFG), 2006. White Mesa Uranium Facility Cell 4 Seismic Study,
Blanding Utah. MFG Project No. 181413x.102 dated November 27.

Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech), 2010. “White Mesa Uranium Facility Seismic Study Update for a
Proposed Cell,” Technical Memorandum to Denison Mines, February 3.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 1989. Technical Approach Document, Revision II, UMTRA-
DOE/AL 050425.0002, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2008. Earthquake Hazards Program: United Stated National
Seismic Hazard Maps Program (NSHMP). http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/
conterminous12008/. May.
----....,.-~REA SHOWN _I ATRIGHT L ___ _
KEY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
\_/
' (
~
~'
' ~~ ~ ~~-j ~I
'~ / ,.--' * \---~ // /
,//
/ /
/
/
I
I
/ '
(
/ r
~~ 10,161,000
+
\
r
I
\ ;,
/
~ t
OENISOJ)JJ
MINES
I I j , r / I (
( I ( ~ ~
'~~
\. -.
' f
TITLE
Denison Mines (USA) Corp
0 0 a_
<Xl
"' "' w
I\
I
\ \ (
~SBR
\ s~ \ (A
r
' '
200 0 200 FT
-
LEGEND:
-5605 --GROUND SURFACE CONTOUR AND ELEVATION FROM 2007 LIDAR SURVEY, FEET
FINAL COVER SURFACE -5605 -ELEVATION (TOP OF EROSION
PROTECTION LAYER). FEET
WHilE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION G> MWH
SLOPE STABILITY
CROSS SECTION LOCATION
DATE
AUG2011
FLE ~JAME
FIGURE E.1
1009740 SLOPE

ATTA
TETRA
ACHMENT E
A TECH (20
Update
E.1
10)
ed Tailings Coover Design RReport
[ •it;) TETRA TECH
380 I Automation Way Suite I 00
Fort Collins CO 80525
Tel [phone] Fax 970.223.717 1
www.tetr.rtech.com
Technical Memorandum
To: Mr. Harold R. Roberts
Company: Denison Mines (USA) Corp
Reviewed
by:
Re:
1 050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 950
Denver, CO 80265
White Mesa Uranium Facility
Seismic Study update for a Proposed Cell
Blanding, Utah
Introduction
Heather Trantham, Ph.D., P.E.
From: Senior Staff Geotechnical
Engineer
Date: February 3, 2010
Project#: 114-182018
Denison Mines (USA) Corp is proposing to add a new uranium containment cell to the facility at
Blanding, Utah. This document was prepared to address seismic concerns brought forth in
comments by the UDRC as documented in the second round of Interrogatories. This seismic
hazard analysis has been prepared as an update to the previous seismic study performed for the
site by Tetra Tech (formerly MFG, 2006).
Project Location
The project is located near Blanding, Utah. For the purposes of these analyses, the latitude and
longitude of 37.5°N and 109.5°W, respectively, were used.
Previous Work
Seismicity of the White Mesa site has been investigated in two previous reports. The original
design report for Cell 4 was prepared in 1988 by UMETCO. The geologic conditions and the
1
[ •rt;) TETRA TECH
potential seismic hazards were characterized in that report. The specified hazards include minor
random earth quakes 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 a
suspected Quarternary fault, but does not have strong evidence for Quaternary movement. The
maximum credible earthquake (MCE) associated with this fault was 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 ldriss. Peak horizontal
accelerations at the site from the fault were estimated to be 0.07 g.
In 2006 an additional seismic study was prepared to recommend a design peak ground
acceleration (PGA) to use during the operational period for the design of Cell 4A at the site. A
search performed as part of that study found one additional suspected Quaternary fault in the
USGS (2006) Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. The search was performed for a region within
50 km of the site. The database lists the· Shay graben fault as a Class B (suspected) Quaternary
fault. In the report updated attenuation relationships were used to estimate ground motions and
then compared: Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Spudich et al. (1999), and Campbell and Bozorgnia
(2003). The design Peak Ground· Acceleration (PGA) for Cell 4 was determined to be 0.09 g
based on the 2002 USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM) with a 2 percent probability of
exceedance in 50 years. The report concluded that the seismic loading of 0.1 g used in the analysis
of Cell 4A associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance within 50 years was appropriate
for the operational life of the disposal cell.
The following sections address requests sent to Denson Mines (USA) Corp in an email from URS
dated January 20, 2010. In addition to the information presented below, the information by
Brumbaugh (2005) that was referenced in the email was also reviewed.
Regional Physiographic and Tectonic Setting
The site is located within the Colorado Plateau physiographic province in southeastern Utah. The
Colorado Plateau is a broad, roughly circular region of relative structural stability within a more
structurally active region of disturbed mountain systems. Broad basins and uplifts, monoclines,
and belts of anticlines and synclines are characteristic of the plateau (Kelley, 1979).
The White Mesa site is located near the western edge of the Blanding Basin, east of the north-
south trending Monument Uplift, south of the Abajo Mountains. It is also adjacent to the northwest
trending Paradox Fold.
The contemporary seismicity of the Colorado Plateau was investigated by Wong and Humphrey
(1989) based on seismic monitoring. Their study characterized the seismicity of the plateau as
being of small to moderate magnitude, of a low to moderate rate of occurrence with earthquakes
widely distributed. Seismicity in the plateau appears to be the result of the reactivation of
preexisting faults not expressed at the surface but favorable oriented to the tectonic stress field.
Very few earth quakes can be associated with known geologic structures or tectonic features in the
plateau. The generally small size of the earthquakes and their widespread distribution is consistent
with a highly faulted Precambrian basement and upper crust, and a moderate level of differential
tectonic stresses. Earthquakes in the plateau generally occur within the upper 15 to 20 km of the
2
["it:] TETRA TECH
upper crust (Smith, 1978, Wong and Chapman, 1986) although events have occurred as deep as
58 km (Wong and Humphrey, 1989). The predominant mode of tectonic deformation within the
plateau appears to be normal faulting on the northwest-to north-northwest-striking faults, with
some localized occurrences of strike-slip displacement on the northwest-or northeast-striking
planes at shallow depths. The contemporary state of stress within the plateau is characterized by
approximately northeast-trending extension (Wong and Humphrey, 1989).
Seismicity
Earthquake Catalogs
The seismic hazard analysis for the site included a review of historic earthquakes which have
occurred within 200 miles of the site. A radius of 200 miles is recommended by the Senior Seismic
Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC, 1997) and the NRC (2007). The NEIC database was used
and includes all recorded seismic events over a period from 1850 through January 2010. The
database search was performed to incorporate the most recent seismic events in the region and to
verify that estimated ground accelerations from all known events are below the design peak
acceleration recommended in this report.
The largest event is estimated in the NOAA catalog to have an Mw of 5.8. This event occurred
near Smithfield, Utah on August 30, 1962. The epicenter is approximately 200 miles northwest of
the site.
The event closest to the site had an epicenter about 40 miles northwest of the site. This
earthquake, which occurred on February 23, 1968 had an Mw of 2.8.
The list of earthquakes as described above is included in Appendix 1. The peak ground
accelerations for the five most significant earthquakes on the list were calculated and are
discussed below.
Seismic Hazard Analysis
Seismic hazard analyses are typically conducted using one of two methods: (1) deterministic
analysis or (2) probabilistic analysis (SSHAC, 1997). In the deterministic analyses, the ground
motions from the maximum credible earthquake (MCE) associated with capable faults are
attenuated to the site. The ground motions from the MCE associated with the fault are attenuated
to the site using established attenuation equations. Deterministic analysis was used in this seismic
update and is described in the next section.
In probabilistic analyses, ground motions and the associated probability of exceedance are
estimated in order for the amount of risk associated with the design ground motion to be evaluated.
As specified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Promulgated Standards for
Remedial Actions at Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (40 CFR 192), the controls of residual
radioactive material are to be effective for up to 1 ,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable
and, in any case, for at least 200 years. For the purpose of the seismic hazard evaluation, a
1 0,000-year return period is adopted for evaluating long-term stability of the facility. The probability
that the 1 0,000-year event will be exceeded within a 200-to 1 ,000-year design life is between 2
3
[1t:) TETRA TECH
and 10 percent. This is consistent with the International Building Code (IBC, 2006) which specifies
designing for ground motions associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in a 50-year
design life, or a return period of approximately 2,500 years. Similarly, a 2,500-year return period is
appropriate during operational conditions considering a design life of 50 years.
The probability of exceedance can be represented by the following equation:
PE = 1-e -(n/T)
where PE is the probability of exceedance, n is the time period in years, and T is the return period
in years.
Using the most recent USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM, 2008), with a 10,000 year
return period, and the probability of exceedance of 2% for a 200-year design life, the PGA for the
site was determined to be 0.15 g. The shear wave velocity (v5) used for the deaggragation
calculation 586 m/s which corresponds to 1923 ftls. Site Class Definitions are listed for the top 100
feet of the soil profile in Table 1613.5.2 of the International Building Code (IBC, 2006). For soils
having a Standard Penetration Resistance (N-value) between 15 and 50, the shear wave velocity
ranges between 600 and 1,200 ftls. In conjunction with previous work at the site, Tetra Tech
(formerly MFG) drilled a borehole at the site on June 15, 2006. The Standard Penetration values
from borehole MFG-1 range from N=33 to N=50/5". The shear wave velocity chosen for the top 31'
was 200 m/s (656 ftls). For the remaining 69', a shear wave velocity of 760 m/s (2493 ft/s)
corresponding to sandstone was chosen. The weighted average of the shear wave velocity for the
top 100ft was 586 m/s (1923 ftls). The borehole log for MFG-1 is presented in Appendix 2. The
data from USGS National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2008 Version PSHA Deaggregation
are presented in Appendix 3.
Earthquakes occur that are not associated with a known structure. These events are termed
background events, or floating earthquakes. Evaluation of the background event allows for
potential low to moderate earthquakes not associated with tectonic structures to contribute to the
seismic hazard of the site. The maximum magnitude for these background events within the
Intermountain U.S. ranges between local magnitude (ML) 6.0 and 6.5 (Woodward-Clyde, 1996).
Larger earthquakes would be expected to leave a detectable surface expression, especially in arid
to semiarid climates, with slow erosion rates and limited vegetation. In seismically less active
areas such as the Colorado Plateau, the maximum magnitude associated with a background event
is assumed to be 6.3, consistent with that used in seismic evaluations performed for uranium tailing
sites in Green River (DOE 1991 a, pg. 26), and Grand Junction (DOE 1991 b, pg. 71 ). A study by
Wong et al (1996) also evaluated the recurrence of background events within the Colorado
Plateau. Wong et al. (1996) suggests that the maximum background earthquakes as large as Mw
could occur, although they are unlikely. In this update, an arbitrary event (Mw = 6.3, radial distance
= 15 km) was analyzed using the most recent Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007) attenuation
relationship. Results are described in the following section
Attenuation Relationships
In the previous study (MFG, 2006) three attenuation relationships to estimate the peak ground
motion at the White Mesa site were used: Abrahamson and Silva (1997), Spudich et al. (1999),
4
["it::) TETRA TECH
and Campbell and Bozorgnia (2003). Since this report, Campbell and Bozorgnia have updated
their 2003 model into a Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) Project (2007). The NGA model
included the input of several other modelers and is considered an update to Abrahamson and Silva
(1997), Boore, et al. (1997), Sadigh, et al. (1997), ldriss (1993 and 1996), and (Campbell and
Bozorgnia (2006). The faults chosen for the analysis include the unnamed fault north of Monticello
that was the basis of the design acceleration in the 1988 report, and the Shay graben faults (USGS
2006) a Class B (suspected) Quaternary fault that was included in the 2006 report. Additionally the
earthquakes in the earthquake catalog created for the site were considered. The earthquakes that
were considered have a calculated magnitude. The calculation of the magnitude of these
earthquakes was not performed as part of this study. The accelerations felt at the White Mesa site
due to these recorded events are listed in Table 1 for the 5 most relevant events. For comparison,
an arbitrary event occurring 15 km from the site with a magnitude of 6.3 is used to account for the
floating earthquake at the White Mesa site. The results for attenuation relations as calculated
using Campbell and Bozorgnia NGA (2007) plus one standard deviation are reported are
presented in Table 1. Spreadsheets detailing the calculations are included in Appendix 4.
5
['if:) TETRA TECH
Table1. Peak Ground Accelerations for White Mesa
Fault Distance
Name Length Fault Site from Site MCE<3> PGA<4> Type<1> Class<2>
(km) (km)
Unnamed fault north of
Monticello (possible 3.0 N R 57.4 5.49 0.038 extension of Shays
graben) defined le~gth
Unnamed fault north of
Monticello (possible
extension of Shays 11.0 N R 57.4 6.23 0.063
graben) total possible
length
Unnamed fault north of
Monticello (possible 5.5 N R 57.4 5.84 0.049 extension of Shays
graben) Y2 total rupture
Shay graben faults 40.0 N R 44.6 6.97 0.090 (Class B)
Earthquake on 2/21 /54
from EPB catalog ---70 4.7 0.012
Earthquake on 1/30/89 ---147 5.4 0.011 from POE catalog
Earthquake on 2/3/95
from POE catalog ---139 5.3 0.01 1
Earthquake on 1 0/11 /77 ---74 4.7 0.011 from POE catalog
Earthquake on 10/11 /60 -- -189 5.5 0.01 from SRA catalog
Floating Earthquake ---15 6.3 0.243
(1) Fault Type: N= Normal
(2) Site Class: R = Rock or shallow soils
(3) Wells and Coppersmith, 1994
(4) Campbell and Bozorgnia NGA, 2007
Conclusion
Using the most recent USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM, 2008), with a 1 0,000 year
return period, and the probability of exceedance of 2% for a 200-year design life, the PGA for the
site was determined to be 0.15 g. Based on the most current USGS Geological Survey Earthquake
Hazards Program National Maps (2008), and using the attenuation relationship of Campbell and
Bozorgnia (2007), this PGA of 0.15 g is reasonable for the White Mesa site. This maximum PGA is
a peak value. For a pseudo-static analysis, and in accordance with IBC 2006, the PGA should be
multiplied by 0.667 to determine a design acceleration value. Therefore the design acceleration
value for the White Mesa site is calculated to be 0.1. This value is consistent with the previous
design value that was computed in th e previous analysis for the site.
6
( •tt;) TETRA TECH
References
40 CFR 192. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Health and Environmental
Protection Standards for Uranium and Thorium Mill Tailings."
Abrahamson, N.A., Silva, W.J. (1997) Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for
Shallow Crustal Earthquakes. Seismological Research Letters68(1):94:127.
Brumbaugh, D.S. (2005) Active Faulting and Seismicity in a Prefractured Terrane: Grand Canyon,
Arizona. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America 95: 1561-1566.
Bryant, W.A, and Sander, E.G. (2008) National Quaternary Fault and Fold Database Data
Compilation for the State of California, National Quaternary Fault and Fold Database
Compilation for the State of California.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (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
93(1 ):314-331.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia Y. (2006) Campbeii-Bozorgnia NGA Empirical Ground Motion
Model for the Average Horizontal Component of PGA, PGV and SA at Selected Spectral
Periods Ranting from 0.01-10 Seconds. Workshop on Implementation of the Next
Generation Attenuation Relationships (NGA) in the 2007 Revision of the National Seismic
Hazard Maps. PEER Center, Richmond, CA September 25-26.
Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y. (2007) NGA Ground Motion Relations for the Geometric Mean
Horizontal Component of Peak and Spectra Ground Motion Parameters. Pacific
Earthquake Engineering Research Center Report2007/02, 246 p.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy (1991 a) Remedial Action Plan and Final Design for Stabilization
of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings at Green River, Utah.
DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) (1991 b) Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization
of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Site at Grand Junction, Colorado.
International Building Code (2006) International Code council, Inc.
Kelley, V.C. (1979) Tectonics of the Colorado Plateau and New Interpretation of Its Eastern
Boundary. Tectonophysics 61 :97-102.
NRC (2007) A Performance-Based Approach to Define the Site-Specific Earthquake Ground
Motion. Regulatory Guide 1.208 March 2007.
Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) (1997) Recommendations for Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Analysis-Guidance on Uncertainty and Use of Experts: U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-6327.
7
[ ,l;) TETRA TECH
Slemmons, D.B. (1997) State-of-the-Art for Assessing Earthquake Hazards in the United States:
Report 6. Faults and Earthquake Magnitude: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station Miscellaneous Paper S-73-1, 129 p., 37 p.
Smith, R.B. (1978) Seismicity, Crustan Structure and lnterplate Tectonics of the Interior of the
Western Cordillera, in Smith R.B., and Eaton, G.P. eds., Cenozoic Tecctonics and Regional
Geophysics of the Western Cordillera: Geological Society of America Memoir 152:111-
144.
Spudich, P., Joyner, W.B., Lindh, D.M., Boore, D.M., Margaris, B.M., and Fletcher, J.B. (1999)
SEA99: A Revised Ground Motion Prediction Relation for Use in Extensional Tectonic
Regimes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 314-331 ,
February.
Tetra Tech, Inc. (formerly MFG) {2006) White Mesa Uranium Uranium Facility Cell 4 Seismic
Study, Blanding Utah. MFG Project No. 181413x.1 02 dated November 27.
USGS (2008) Earthquake Hazards Program: United Stated National Seismic Hazard Maps
Program (NSHMP). May 2008
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/products/conterminous/2008/
UMETCO (1988) Cell 4 Design, Appendix A, White Mesa Project.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (1996) Evaluation and Potential Seismic and Salt Dissolution
Hazards at the Atlas Uranium Mill Tailings Site, Moab Utah, Oakland, California,
unpublished Consultant's report for Smith Environmental Technologies and Atlas
Corporation, SK9407.
Wong, I.G., and Chapman, D.S. {1986) Deep Intraplate Earthquakes in the Intermountain U.S.:
Implications to Thermal and Stress Conditions in the Lower Crust and Upper Mantle,
Earthquake Notes 57:6.
Wong, I.G. and Humphrey, H.R. (1989) Contemporary Seismicity, Faulting, and the State of Stress
in the Colorado Plateau: Geological Society of America Bulletin , v. 101, p. 1127-1146.
Wong, I.G., Olig, S.S., and Bott, J.D.J. (1996) Earthquake Potential and Seismic Hazards in the
Paradox Basin, Southeastern Utah, in A.C. Huffman, W.R. Lund, and L.H. Godwin, eds.,
Geology and Resources of the Paradox Basin, 1996 Special Symposium, Utah Geological
Association and Four Corners Geological Society Guidebook 25:241-250.
8

APPENDIX 1: EARTHQUAKE EVENTS WITHIN 200
MILES OF THE WHITE MESA SITE

Appendix 1: Earthquake Events within 200 miles of the White
Mesa Site

Source: NEIC Database

Magnitude Year Month Day
Latitude
(degree,
North)
Longitude
(degree,
West) Magnitud
e
Radial
Distanc
e
(km)
Catalog
NOAA 1962 8 30 41.8 -111.8 5.8 320 0.007
SRA 1973 5 17 39.79 -108.37 5.7 272 0.008
PDE 1973 5 17 39.79 -108.37 5.7 180
0.012 (man
made)
SRA 1959 7 21 36.8 -112.37 5.6 266 0.007
EPB 1962 8 30 41.8 -111.8 5.6 320 0.006
USHIS 1959 7 21 36.8 -112.37 5.6 266 0.007
SRA 1960 10 11 38.3 -107.6 5.5 189 0.01
USHIS 1960 10 11 38.3 -107.6 5.5 189 0.01
USHIS 1967 10 4 38.54 -112.16 5.5 260 0.007
PDE 1989 1 30 38.82 -111.61 5.4 147 0.011
PDE 1988 8 14 39.13 -110.87 5.3 141 0.01
PDE 1995 2 3 41.53 -109.64 5.3 139 0.011
EPB 1894 7 18 41.2 -112 5.3 284 0.004
USHIS 1988 8 14 39.128 -110.869 5.3 216 0.006
USHIS 1989 1 30 38.824 -111.614 5.3 236 0.006
SRA 1921 9 29 38.7 -112.1 5.2 263 0.004
SRA 1967 10 4 38.54 -112.16 5.2 260 0.004
EPB 1950 1 18 40.5 -110.5 5.2 140 0.009
USHIS 1921 9 29 38.7 -112.1 5.2 263 0.004
SRA 1966 1 23 36.98 -107.02 5.1 227 0.004
PDE 1977 9 30 40.52 -110.44 5.1 279 0.003
EPB 1962 9 5 40.7 -112 5.1 251
SRA 1959 10 13 35.5 -111.5 5 285
EPB 1884 11 9 41.5 -111.2 5 264
EPB 1910 5 22 40.8 -112 5 257
EPB 1915 7 15 40.3 -111.7 5 207
EPB 1943 2 22 41 -111.5 5 238
EPB 1950 2 25 40 -112 5 221
EPB 1953 5 23 40.5 -111.5 5 203
EPB 1958 2 13 40.5 -111.5 5 203
USHIS 1959 10 13 35.5 -111.5 5 285
USHIS 1963 7 7 39.53 -111.91 4.9 307
USHIS 1966 1 23 36.98 -107.02 4.9 227
SRA 1962 2 5 38.2 -107.6 4.7 184
PDE 1977 10 11 40.49 -110.49 4.7 74 0.011
PDE 2003 4 17 39.52 -111.86 4.7 281
EPB 1954 2 21 40 -109 4.7 70 0.012
EPB 1958 12 1 40.5 -112.5 4.7 279
USHIS 1962 2 5 38.2 -107.6 4.7 184
SRA 1976 1 5 35.84 -108.34 4.6 211
PDE 1994 9 13 38.15 -107.98 4.6 140
EPB 1949 3 7 40.8 -111.9 4.6 250
USHIS 1976 1 5 35.817 -108.212 4.6 219
SRA 1962 2 15 36.9 -112.4 4.5 265
SRA 1962 6 5 38 -112.1 4.5 235
PDE 1983 10 8 40.75 -111.99 4.5 177
PDE 1998 1 2 38.21 -112.47 4.5 279
EPB 1950 1 2 41.5 -112 4.5 306
EPB 1956 10 3 41.5 -110.1 4.5 227
EPB 1958 1 5 41 -112.5 4.5 304
USHIS 1962 2 15 36.9 -112.4 4.5 265
USHIS 1962 6 5 38 -112.1 4.5 235
SRA 1962 1 13 38.4 -107.8 4.4 179
SRA 1962 2 15 37 -112.9 4.4 306
SRA 1963 7 7 39.53 -111.91 4.4 307
SRA 1972 1 3 38.65 -112.17 4.4 266
SRA 1986 3 24 39.234 -112.062 4.4 295
PDE 1986 3 24 39.24 -112.01 4.4 275
PDE 1992 6 24 38.78 -111.55 4.4 140
PDE 2000 1 30 41.46 -109.68 4.4 263
EPB 1957 10 26 40 -111 4.4 139
USHIS 1972 1 3 38.65 -112.17 4.4 266
USHIS 1986 3 24 39.236 -112.009 4.4 291
USHIS 1988 8 18 39.132 -110.867 4.4 216
SRA 1963 9 30 38.1 -111.22 4.3 165
PDE 1994 9 6 38.08 -112.33 4.3 140
PDE 1999 4 6 41.45 -107.74 4.3 262
PDE 2000 5 27 38.34 -108.86 4.3 185
PDE 2001 7 19 38.73 -111.52 4.3 142
PDE 2002 1 31 40.29 -107.69 4.3 191
EPB 1880 9 16 40.8 -112 4.3 257
EPB 1899 12 13 41 -112 4.3 270
EPB 1906 5 24 41.2 -112 4.3 284
EPB 1910 7 26 41.5 -109.3 4.3 222
EPB 1915 8 11 40.5 -112.7 4.3 294
EPB 1916 2 4 40 -111.7 4.3 196
EPB 1920 9 18 41.5 -112 4.3 306
EPB 1950 5 8 40 -111.4 4.3 171
EPB 1952 9 28 40.2 -111.5 4.3 187
EPB 1955 2 2 40.8 -111.9 4.3 250
EPB 1955 2 10 40.5 -107 4.3 240
EPB 1955 5 12 41 -112 4.3 270
EPB 1957 7 18 40 -110.5 4.3 102
EPB 1962 9 4 41.7 -111.8 4.3 312
EPB 1966 3 17 41.7 -111.5 4.3 297
EPB 1967 2 14 40.1 -109 4.3 79
EPB 1967 9 23 40.7 -112.1 4.3 258
SRA 1966 5 8 37 -106.9 4.2 237
SRA 1967 9 4 36.15 -111.6 4.2 239
SRA 1977 3 5 35.91 -108.29 4.2 206
PDE 1973 7 16 39.15 -111.51 4.2 244
PDE 1980 5 24 39.94 -111.97 4.2 265
PDE 1989 2 27 38.83 -111.62 4.2 275
PDE 1992 3 16 40.47 -112.04 4.2 186
PDE 1996 1 6 39.12 -110.88 4.2 145
PDE 1998 6 18 37.97 -112.49 4.2 272
PDE 1999 10 22 38.08 -112.73 4.2 263
PDE 2000 3 7 39.75 -110.84 4.2 263
USHIS 1977 3 5 35.748 -108.222 4.2 225
SRA 1966 5 20 37.98 -111.85 4.1 213
SRA 1973 12 24 35.26 -107.74 4.1 294
PDE 1983 9 24 40.79 -108.84 4.1 291
PDE 1995 3 20 40.18 -108.93 4.1 140
PDE 2001 2 23 38.73 -112.56 4.1 309
PDE 2004 11 7 38.24 -108.92 4.1 281
USHIS 1973 12 24 35.26 -107.74 4.1 294
SRA 1963 7 9 40.03 -111.19 4 316
SRA 1967 2 15 40.11 -109.05 4 292
SRA 1971 11 12 38.91 -108.68 4 172
SRA 1972 6 2 38.67 -112.07 4 260
SRA 1982 5 24 38.71 -112.04 4 259
SRA 1986 8 22 37.42 -110.574 4 95
PDE 1982 5 24 38.71 -112.04 4 273
PDE 1986 8 22 37.42 -110.57 4 281
PDE 1987 12 16 39.29 -111.23 4 247
PDE 1992 7 5 39.32 -111.13 4 154
PDE 1998 1 30 37.97 -112.55 4 319
PDE 2001 8 9 39.66 -107.38 4 289
EPB 1960 7 9 41.5 -112 4 306
USHIS 1982 5 24 38.71 -112.04 4 259
SRA 1967 8 7 36.4 -112.6 3.9 301
SRA 1968 1 16 39.27 -112.04 3.9 296
SRA 1970 4 21 40.1 -108.9 3.9 293
SRA 1970 5 23 38.06 -112.47 3.9 268
USHIS 1986 3 25 39.223 -112.011 3.9 290
SRA 1971 1 7 39.49 -107.31 3.8 291
SRA 1979 4 30 37.88 -111.02 3.8 140
SRA 1963 6 19 38.02 -112.53 3.7 273
SRA 1963 7 10 40.02 -111.25 3.7 318
SRA 1966 7 6 40.09 -108.95 3.7 291
SRA 1970 4 18 37.87 -111.72 3.7 199
SRA 1971 7 10 40.24 -109.6 3.7 304
SRA 1971 11 10 37.8 -113.1 3.7 319
SRA 1975 1 30 39.27 -108.65 3.7 209
SRA 1984 8 16 39.392 -111.936 3.7 298
SRA 1967 7 22 38.8 -112.22 3.6 278
SRA 1968 9 24 38.04 -112.08 3.6 234
SRA 1969 4 10 38.66 -112.07 3.6 259
SRA 1972 11 16 37.53 -112.77 3.6 288
SRA 1983 12 9 38.577 -112.565 3.6 294
SRA 1965 6 7 36 -112.2 3.5 292
SRA 1966 4 23 39.1 -111.55 3.5 252
SRA 1966 5 8 36.9 -107 3.5 231
SRA 1968 11 17 39.52 -110.97 3.5 258
SRA 1974 11 4 38.34 -112.24 3.5 258
SRA 1976 4 19 35.39 -109.1 3.5 236
SRA 1978 2 24 38.33 -112.84 3.5 307
SRA 1979 1 12 37.73 -113.13 3.5 321
SRA 1979 10 23 37.89 -110.93 3.5 133
SRA 1981 5 14 39.48 -111.08 3.5 259
SRA 1984 3 21 39.344 -111.109 3.5 248
SRA 1962 12 11 39.36 -110.42 3.4 221
SRA 1963 4 15 39.59 -110.35 3.4 243
SRA 1966 6 1 36.9 -107 3.4 231
SRA 1981 1 16 37.45 -113.11 3.4 319
SRA 1983 8 14 38.359 -107.402 3.4 207
SRA 1963 4 24 39.44 -110.33 3.3 227
SRA 1963 8 16 39.48 -111.99 3.3 308
SRA 1964 1 17 38.19 -112.62 3.3 284
SRA 1965 1 14 39.44 -110.35 3.3 227
SRA 1966 12 19 39 -106.5 3.3 310
SRA 1968 6 2 39.21 -110.45 3.3 207
SRA 1969 5 23 39.02 -111.97 3.3 274
SRA 1978 12 9 38.66 -112.53 3.3 295
SRA 1978 12 9 38.65 -112.52 3.3 293
SRA 1981 1 16 37.45 -113.1 3.3 318
SRA 1981 8 8 38.05 -112.8 3.3 296
SRA 1982 3 5 37.37 -112.61 3.3 275
SRA 1983 1 27 37.778 -110.674 3.3 108
SRA 1983 8 31 36.135 -112.037 3.3 272
SRA 1985 4 14 35.174 -109.071 3.3 260
SRA 1986 10 5 38.631 -112.558 3.3 296
SRA 1962 8 19 38.05 -112.09 3.2 236
SRA 1963 11 13 38.3 -112.66 3.2 291
SRA 1965 1 30 37.54 -113.12 3.2 319
SRA 1965 6 29 39.5 -110.39 3.2 235
SRA 1966 4 14 37 -107 3.2 228
SRA 1967 10 25 39.47 -110.35 3.2 230
SRA 1973 2 9 36.43 -110.425 3.2 144
SRA 1974 4 29 37.81 -112.98 3.2 308
SRA 1977 2 9 39.29 -111.11 3.2 243
SRA 1977 6 3 39.65 -110.51 3.2 254
SRA 1979 10 6 39.29 -111.69 3.2 275
SRA 1980 12 21 37.53 -113.04 3.2 312
SRA 1981 9 21 39.59 -110.42 3.2 245
SRA 1982 2 12 37.41 -112.57 3.2 271
SRA 1984 5 14 39.322 -107.228 3.2 283
SRA 1986 5 14 37.294 -110.319 3.2 75
SRA 1962 9 7 39.2 -110.89 3.1 224
SRA 1964 8 24 38.77 -112.23 3.1 277
SRA 1964 9 6 39.18 -111.46 3.1 253
SRA 1964 11 29 38.97 -112.23 3.1 289
SRA 1966 7 30 39.44 -110.36 3.1 227
SRA 1970 2 21 39.49 -110.35 3.1 232
SRA 1970 10 25 39.17 -111.41 3.1 249
SRA 1971 4 22 39.41 -111.94 3.1 300
SRA 1971 6 23 38.61 -112.71 3.1 307
SRA 1976 8 13 38.42 -112.18 3.1 256
SRA 1976 11 26 39.51 -111.26 3.1 270
SRA 1979 3 19 40.18 -108.9 3.1 301
SRA 1981 9 10 37.5 -110.56 3.1 93
SRA 1983 3 22 39.546 -110.422 3.1 240
SRA 1984 4 22 39.281 -107.19 3.1 282
SRA 1963 12 24 39.56 -110.32 3 239
SRA 1964 8 5 38.95 -110.92 3 203
SRA 1964 9 21 38.8 -112.21 3 277
SRA 1965 7 13 37.71 -112.98 3 308
SRA 1965 7 20 38.03 -112.44 3 265
SRA 1965 9 10 39.43 -111.47 3 274
SRA 1967 4 4 38.32 -107.75 3 178
SRA 1968 3 20 37.92 -112.28 3 249
SRA 1970 4 14 39.65 -110.82 3 264
SRA 1970 11 24 36.357 -112.273 3 277
SRA 1971 12 15 36.791 -111.824 3 220
SRA 1973 1 22 37.19 -112.97 3 309
SRA 1976 2 28 35.91 -111.788 3 269
SRA 1977 9 24 39.31 -107.31 3 277
SRA 1977 11 29 36.82 -110.99 3 152
SRA 1978 5 29 39.28 -107.32 3 274
SRA 1978 9 23 39.32 -111.09 3 245
SRA 1981 5 29 36.83 -110.37 3 107
SRA 1981 7 14 36.82 -110.31 3 104
SRA 1981 9 22 39.59 -110.39 3 244
SRA 1982 4 17 38.22 -111.3 3 177
SRA 1982 11 3 35.32 -108.74 3 251
SRA 1982 11 19 36.03 -112.01 3 277
SRA 1983 5 3 38.305 -110.633 3 133
SRA 1984 6 12 39.143 -107.394 3 259
SRA 1984 7 18 36.216 -111.844 3 252
SRA 1985 6 27 39.558 -110.396 3 241
EPB 1930 7 28 41.5 -109.3 3 222
SRA 1963 1 10 39.5 -110.33 2.9 233
SRA 1963 9 2 39.62 -110.4 2.9 247
SRA 1964 2 6 37.65 -112.97 2.9 306
SRA 1964 6 6 39.6 -110.37 2.9 245
SRA 1964 8 12 39.15 -112.16 2.9 295
SRA 1965 1 18 37.97 -112.85 2.9 299
SRA 1965 3 26 39.42 -110.28 2.9 223
SRA 1965 5 29 39.29 -110.35 2.9 212
SRA 1966 5 1 39.08 -111.56 2.9 251
SRA 1969 3 13 39.55 -110.41 2.9 240
SRA 1969 11 12 37.77 -112.43 2.9 260
SRA 1970 8 31 38.17 -112.33 2.9 259
SRA 1972 7 13 37.56 -111.94 2.9 215
SRA 1972 10 17 37.69 -112.93 2.9 303
SRA 1975 1 12 38 -112.91 2.9 305
SRA 1975 9 10 38.6 -112.59 2.9 297
SRA 1976 8 19 39.31 -111.11 2.9 245
SRA 1978 8 30 38.03 -112.49 2.9 269
SRA 1978 10 14 38.19 -112.35 2.9 262
SRA 1982 1 7 36.95 -112.88 2.9 305
SRA 1982 2 25 39.6 -109.4 2.9 233
SRA 1982 5 18 39.71 -110.73 2.9 267
SRA 1982 11 22 39.74 -107.58 2.9 299
SRA 1986 2 14 39.675 -110.525 2.9 257
SRA 1986 4 11 38.982 -106.94 2.9 277
PDE-Q 2009 11 27 38.96 -111.59 2.9 190
PDE-Q 2009 12 23 40.753 -112.056 2.9 258
PDE-Q 2010 1 5 40.36 -111.91 2.9 226
SRA 1962 3 16 36.88 -109.72 2.8 71
SRA 1965 2 26 39.84 -110.45 2.8 272
SRA 1965 6 17 39.51 -111.22 2.8 268
SRA 1965 10 22 38.99 -110.26 2.8 178
SRA 1966 2 17 36.98 -107.02 2.8 227
SRA 1966 2 27 36.9 -107 2.8 231
SRA 1966 5 5 37.03 -112.38 2.8 260
SRA 1966 5 30 38 -112.13 2.8 238
SRA 1966 6 21 36.9 -107.1 2.8 223
SRA 1967 11 16 39.55 -110.32 2.8 238
SRA 1968 2 23 37.6 -110.24 2.8 66
SRA 1968 9 20 38.49 -112.25 2.8 265
SRA 1970 1 22 39.58 -110.41 2.8 244
SRA 1970 12 3 35.874 -111.906 2.8 280
SRA 1971 2 24 39.49 -110.36 2.8 233
SRA 1973 2 10 38.06 -112.83 2.8 299
SRA 1974 9 16 38.7 -112.55 2.8 298
SRA 1975 9 29 35.96 -106.79 2.8 296
SRA 1975 10 6 39.15 -111.5 2.8 253
SRA 1976 6 30 38.85 -112.06 2.8 269
SRA 1976 7 9 38.97 -111.48 2.8 237
SRA 1976 11 6 39.47 -111.31 2.8 269
SRA 1977 3 25 39.76 -110.83 2.8 276
SRA 1980 3 1 39.62 -110.68 2.8 256
SRA 1981 6 9 39.51 -111.26 2.8 270
SRA 1982 2 15 39.2 -111.99 2.8 287
SRA 1982 12 9 39.31 -111.15 2.8 247
SRA 1983 12 15 37.575 -110.51 2.8 89
SRA 1985 6 11 39.166 -111.47 2.8 252
SRA 1985 9 6 39.594 -110.42 2.8 245
PDE-Q 2010 1 11 39.7 -111.26 2.8 152
SRA 1963 3 12 39.51 -110.66 2.7 244
SRA 1964 3 2 39.5 -111.87 2.7 303
SRA 1964 12 26 39.61 -110.38 2.7 246
SRA 1965 7 5 39.23 -111.44 2.7 256
SRA 1966 1 22 36.57 -111.99 2.7 244
SRA 1966 3 22 36.98 -107.02 2.7 227
SRA 1966 4 18 39.29 -112.07 2.7 299
SRA 1967 4 3 39.44 -111.07 2.7 255
SRA 1967 5 8 37.79 -110.17 2.7 67
SRA 1967 5 17 37.85 -112.3 2.7 249
SRA 1968 10 11 39.03 -110.17 2.7 179
SRA 1970 5 21 39.41 -110.31 2.7 223
SRA 1971 11 30 37.62 -113.09 2.7 317
SRA 1972 4 27 39.2 -111.45 2.7 254
SRA 1972 5 20 35.4 -107.36 2.7 301
SRA 1972 12 18 35.42 -107.16 2.7 311
SRA 1973 7 16 39.1 -111.43 2.7 244
SRA 1974 5 29 39.02 -111.48 2.7 241
SRA 1974 6 15 39.55 -110.58 2.7 246
SRA 1974 7 12 39.43 -112.13 2.7 313
SRA 1974 8 14 38.69 -112 2.7 255
SRA 1974 9 3 39.55 -111 2.7 262
SRA 1974 10 23 39.77 -110.75 2.7 274
SRA 1974 12 25 37.87 -112.99 2.7 310
SRA 1976 2 20 39.31 -111.14 2.7 246
SRA 1976 8 3 38.09 -112.45 2.7 267
SRA 1976 12 30 38.31 -112.2 2.7 253
SRA 1977 9 21 37.11 -111.54 2.7 185
SRA 1981 4 9 37.72 -110.54 2.7 94
SRA 1982 1 29 39.49 -112.18 2.7 321
SRA 1982 3 23 39.47 -112 2.7 308
SRA 1982 8 25 38.01 -111.64 2.7 196
SRA 1982 11 13 36.69 -106.71 2.7 263
SRA 1983 2 12 39.311 -111.162 2.7 247
SRA 1983 8 4 37.525 -110.452 2.7 84
SRA 1984 1 8 39.04 -111.509 2.7 245
SRA 1984 8 29 39.32 -111.162 2.7 248
SRA 1985 12 3 39.701 -111.171 2.7 284
SRA 1985 12 6 38.789 -108.899 2.7 152
SRA 1986 5 9 38.887 -106.884 2.7 275
SRA 1962 1 20 36.45 -110.4 2.6 141
SRA 1962 8 10 39.28 -111.42 2.6 259
SRA 1962 8 21 39.35 -111.03 2.6 244
SRA 1963 3 17 39.1 -111.96 2.6 278
SRA 1966 5 5 36.82 -112.39 2.6 267
SRA 1966 7 24 36.9 -107 2.6 231
SRA 1969 4 16 39.95 -110.72 2.6 291
SRA 1969 8 19 37.64 -110.65 2.6 102
SRA 1971 3 27 36.762 -112.393 2.6 269
SRA 1971 6 25 39.45 -110.34 2.6 228
SRA 1971 11 16 37.7 -113.1 2.6 318
SRA 1972 6 26 38.19 -112.47 2.6 272
SRA 1974 9 20 38.75 -112.33 2.6 284
SRA 1976 3 21 39.3 -111.2 2.6 248
SRA 1976 10 25 37.88 -112.7 2.6 285
SRA 1977 3 5 39.3 -111.28 2.6 253
SRA 1977 5 9 39.34 -111.1 2.6 247
SRA 1977 8 12 36.79 -110.92 2.6 148
SRA 1977 12 27 37.78 -112.52 2.6 268
SRA 1979 3 29 40.27 -108.81 2.6 313
SRA 1982 10 24 38.53 -112.28 2.6 269
SRA 1982 11 25 39.33 -111.12 2.6 247
SRA 1983 6 28 39.329 -111.133 2.6 247
SRA 1984 6 8 39.733 -110.94 2.6 277
SRA 1985 4 10 39.731 -110.936 2.6 277
SRA 1985 5 5 39.608 -110.375 2.6 245
SRA 1985 7 17 39.609 -110.397 2.6 246
SRA 1985 9 24 39.588 -110.42 2.6 245
SRA 1986 3 12 39.326 -111.094 2.6 245
SRA 1986 7 31 38.225 -112.556 2.6 280
SRA 1986 9 27 39.561 -110.403 2.6 241
SRA 1962 10 1 36.14 -111.74 2.5 250
SRA 1963 8 1 39.55 -110.33 2.5 238
SRA 1965 5 16 37.95 -112.45 2.5 264
SRA 1966 2 7 39.54 -111.09 2.5 265
SRA 1966 4 28 39.49 -110.33 2.5 232
SRA 1966 6 18 38.6 -112.7 2.5 306
SRA 1967 2 1 37.83 -110.17 2.5 69
SRA 1968 8 3 37.99 -112.39 2.5 260
SRA 1969 6 18 38.75 -112.21 2.5 275
SRA 1969 11 22 38.99 -111.49 2.5 240
SRA 1970 10 13 38.55 -112.26 2.5 268
SRA 1971 11 25 37.7 -113.1 2.5 318
SRA 1972 6 14 39.48 -109.93 2.5 222
SRA 1972 7 1 39.28 -110.25 2.5 208
SRA 1977 5 9 39.34 -111.1 2.6 247
SRA 1977 8 12 36.79 -110.92 2.6 148
SRA 1977 12 27 37.78 -112.52 2.6 268
SRA 1979 3 29 40.27 -108.81 2.6 313
SRA 1982 10 24 38.53 -112.28 2.6 269
SRA 1982 11 25 39.33 -111.12 2.6 247
SRA 1983 6 28 39.329 -111.133 2.6 247
SRA 1984 6 8 39.733 -110.94 2.6 277
SRA 1985 4 10 39.731 -110.936 2.6 277
SRA 1985 5 5 39.608 -110.375 2.6 245
SRA 1985 7 17 39.609 -110.397 2.6 246
SRA 1985 9 24 39.588 -110.42 2.6 245
SRA 1986 3 12 39.326 -111.094 2.6 245
SRA 1986 7 31 38.225 -112.556 2.6 280
SRA 1986 9 27 39.561 -110.403 2.6 241
SRA 1962 10 1 36.14 -111.74 2.5 250
SRA 1963 8 1 39.55 -110.33 2.5 238
SRA 1965 5 16 37.95 -112.45 2.5 264
SRA 1966 2 7 39.54 -111.09 2.5 265
SRA 1966 4 28 39.49 -110.33 2.5 232
SRA 1966 6 18 38.6 -112.7 2.5 306
SRA 1967 2 1 37.83 -110.17 2.5 69
SRA 1968 8 3 37.99 -112.39 2.5 260
SRA 1969 6 18 38.75 -112.21 2.5 275
SRA 1969 11 22 38.99 -111.49 2.5 240
SRA 1970 10 13 38.55 -112.26 2.5 268
SRA 1971 11 25 37.7 -113.1 2.5 318
SRA 1972 6 14 39.48 -109.93 2.5 222
SRA 1972 7 1 39.28 -110.25 2.5 208
SRA 1972 11 15 39 -111.43 2.5 237
SRA 1973 9 29 38.08 -113.07 2.5 320
SRA 1974 4 23 39.62 -110.28 2.5 244
SRA 1974 4 27 39.27 -110.98 2.5 235
SRA 1974 11 13 39.3 -110.24 2.5 209
SRA 1975 1 29 39.32 -111.11 2.5 246
SRA 1975 5 20 38.22 -112.78 2.5 299
SRA 1975 12 20 39.49 -110.65 2.5 242
SRA 1976 2 26 39.31 -111.06 2.5 242
SRA 1976 5 20 35.47 -109.04 2.5 228
SRA 1976 5 31 39.25 -111.19 2.5 243
SRA 1976 6 13 38.9 -111.97 2.5 266
SRA 1976 9 5 38.69 -112.42 2.5 288
SRA 1976 10 6 39.07 -111.63 2.5 255
SRA 1976 12 28 38.35 -111.17 2.5 174
SRA 1977 7 9 37.89 -112.4 2.5 259
SRA 1977 9 7 39.33 -111.12 2.5 247
SRA 1977 11 24 38.26 -112.3 2.5 260
SRA 1981 1 16 37.51 -113.11 2.5 319
SRA 1981 8 14 35.27 -107.9 2.5 285
SRA 1981 8 28 37.84 -112.93 2.5 304
SRA 1982 1 29 39.33 -111.12 2.5 247
SRA 1982 3 8 37.97 -112.16 2.5 240
SRA 1982 9 19 39.2 -111.94 2.5 284
SRA 1982 9 28 39.28 -111.15 2.5 244
SRA 1983 2 20 39.708 -110.95 2.5 275
SRA 1983 7 12 35.576 -107.11 2.5 302
SRA 1984 8 9 37.65 -112.471 2.5 262
SRA 1984 9 7 38.536 -112.287 2.5 270
SRA 1985 5 15 39.114 -111.455 2.5 247
SRA 1985 6 3 39.7 -110.72 2.5 266
SRA 1985 8 6 39.557 -110.397 2.5 241
SRA 1985 11 24 39.57 -110.477 2.5 244
SRA 1985 12 28 39.712 -110.596 2.5 263
SRA 1986 8 7 39.697 -110.736 2.5 266
SRA 1986 8 31 38.966 -111.419 2.5 233
SRA 1964 11 4 39.36 -110.29 2.4 217
SRA 1965 11 4 39.49 -111.04 2.4 258
SRA 1966 8 12 36.6 -107.2 2.4 227
SRA 1968 2 26 39.52 -111.05 2.4 261
SRA 1968 8 29 39.5 -110.38 2.4 234
SRA 1983 6 16 38.936 -111.391 2.4 229
SRA 1966 6 26 36.9 -107.2 2.3 214
SRA 1966 2 6 36.98 -107.02 2.2 227
SRA 1966 2 13 36.97 -106.96 2.2 232
SRA 1984 4 12 39.298 -107.232 2.2 281

APPENDIX 2: BOREHOLE LOG

BOREHOLE LOG BOREHOLE
MFG, Inc. NO.:
consultlng sc/entlsts and engineers PAGE: 1 OF 3
DATE: 6115106 MFG-1
PROJECT INFORMATION BOREHOLE LOCATION
PROJECT: WHITE MESA
PROJECT NO.: 181413)(
CLIENT: TETRA TECH EM/
OWNER: INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (/USA) CORPORATION
LOCATION: BLANDING, UTAH
SEE FIGURE 1
FIELD INFORMATION
DATE & TIME ARRIVED: 6115106 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-/N CA SAMPLES
TIME DRILLING COMPLETE: 12:50PM
BOREHOLE COMPLETION I ABANDONMENT INFORMATION
START TIME: 12:50PM COMPLETE TIME: 1:10PM
INSTRUMENTATION: NONE BACKFILL: BENTONITE
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.
consultlng sc/entlsts and engineers
DRIVE SAMPLES
PROJECT: WHITE MESA
PROJECT NO.: 181413X
DEPTH CORE ADD"L LllliOLOGY
(FT) RECOV. SAMPLE BLOWS SAMPLE! GRAPHIC
TYPE (PER 6") RECOV.
BOREHOLE LOG
PAGE: 2 OF 3
DATE: 6115106
SOIL DESCRIPTION
BOREHOLE
NO.:
MFG-1
COAL COVER AT SURFACE (APPROX. 0.25') r--o-t--,_--r--t--,_--r.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~2---------------; r _ ;!.~~]-; SIL TV CLAY (0 TO APPROX. 5.5')
'-l _ ,-,._.=_:_·~ ... :.._:-:. .. SLIGHTLY MOIST, LIGHT OLIVE BROWN (2.5Y 513). VERY STIFF SILTY CLAY FILL.
' '~ TRACE SAND. TRACE PEBBLES. WHITE PRECIPITATE. ZONES OF COLOR r -:.:.: .. .: :-: CHANGE TO RED (2.5YR 4/6).
r 2 -.;.~~~~ APPROX. 0.5' -MOIST.
r--~"!'""""':..
r-3-:-:·-.. -
r--=-:·-.. -
f-4-~~]-;
r--,.,.~.,-,::-::
f-5-t--,_--r--t--~
""--.. _.:'"" r -CA 11 ""-:."-----________________ _
B 19 17" ."~j~'j SILTYSAND(APPROX.5.5'TOAPPROX.30') f-6-A 33 ·;.,:.;.,_:.;
r--~i'~'j
1-7 -.~.~·;.;,~:..:
r--
f-8-
r--
f-9-
r--
f-10 -t--,_--r--t--~
r--
f-11-
r--
f-12-
r--
f-13-
r--
f-14-
r--
CA 15
B 32 13"
A 43
f-15 -t--,_--r--t--~
r--
f-16-
r--
f-17-
r--
f-18-
r--
f-19-
r--
f-20-
CA
B
A
13
18
36
18"
SLIGHTLY MOIST, RED (2.5YR 5/6). VERY DENSE SILTY SAND. FINE TO MEDIUM
GRAIN. TRACE TO SOME CLAY. WHITE PRECIPITATE.
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.
MFG, Inc.
consultlng sc/entlsts and engineers
DRIVE SAMPLES
PROJECT: WHITE MESA
PROJECT NO.: 181413X
BOREHOLE LOG
PAGE: 3 OF 3
DATE: 6115106
DEPTH CORE ADD"L LllliOLOGY SOIL DESCRIPTION (FT) RECOV. SAMPLE BLOWS SAMPLE! GRAPHIC
TYPE (PER 6") RECOV.
r-20-t--,_--r--t--~
r--
r-21-
r--
r-22-
r--
r-23-
r--
r-24-
CA
B
A
15
29
50/B'
18'
r--
r-25-t--,_--r--t--~
r--
r-26-
r--
r-27-
r--
r-28-
r--
CA
B
A
12
13
20
13'
;~-j~'~ SILTY SAND (APPROX. 5.5' TO APPROX. 30')
.· :-:-::-:-:-:.:· SEE DESCRIPTION ON PREVIOUS PAGE.
~:·· ,.._ .... ~
-~·~.;:-~a .·:.:.:-:·:..:..:-:· i·.: .. :::;:;.;~. • :..;.;!: :..;.;;
;t··~~i~~
.:.:,~;..!<:":
,:!..,;;-:~-:-:
:t:~t·;
·-~·-=-··-··-:~·-: ~ .f.,:~;,:;-;
.;,:·:;;:;::; APPROX.24'-SLIGHTLYMOIST.
BOREHOLE
NO.:
MFG-1
r-29-
r--
r-30-i---t~CA~f--_, __ _,
±~~~-------------------­.:;.::._;;-~-:~ / SANDSTONE (APPROX. 30' TO E.O.B.)
':':':::':':'::·':' SLIGHTLY MOIST, PINK (2.5YR 8/3). VERY DENSE SANDSTONE, FINE TO MEDIUM 38 r -B 50/5' 13' ·::::::::. CEMENTATION, FINE GRAIN.
A r-31-i---r~+---r--t---r··~··~··~··~·~
r--
r-32-
r--
r-33-
r--
r-34-
r--
r-35-
r--
r-36-
r--
r-37-
r--
r-38-
r--
r-39-
r--
r-4o-
E.O.B. = 31.0'

APPENDIX 3: DEAGGREGATION OF SEISMIC HAZARD
FOR PGA FROM USGS NATIONAL SEISMIC HAZARDS
MAPPING PROJECT

*** Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard at One Period of Spectral Accel. ***

*** Data from U.S.G.S. National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project, 2008 version ***

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W., lat: 37.500
N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).

NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below

Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.101E-03
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00192

#This deaggregation corresponds to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs

DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1
-1<EPS<0 -2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
15.5 4.6 4.083 0.475 1.805 1.514 0.289 0 0
38.2 4.61 0.51 0.455 0.055 0 0 0 0
56.3 4.62 0.052 0.052 0 0 0 0 0
13.4 4.79 6.407 0.434 2.156 3.118 0.695 0.005 0
30.6 4.82 3.533 1.428 1.973 0.132 0 0 0
58.5 4.82 0.248 0.248 0 0 0 0 0
12 5.03 4.369 0.166 0.993 2.331 0.847 0.032 0
30.6 5.03 4.813 1.331 2.816 0.665 0 0 0
61 5.04 0.55 0.55 0 0 0 0 0
12.2 5.21 1.761 0.06 0.356 0.881 0.446 0.019 0
31.4 5.21 2.514 0.507 1.427 0.581 0 0 0
62 5.21 0.414 0.41 0.004 0 0 0 0
88.1 5.21 0.061 0.061 0 0 0 0 0
12.4 5.39 2.793 0.086 0.515 1.294 0.841 0.056 0
32.2 5.4 5.072 0.734 2.764 1.574 0 0 0
62.7 5.4 1.142 1.007 0.135 0 0 0 0
89.1 5.41 0.265 0.265 0 0 0 0 0
113.4 5.42 0.105 0.105 0 0 0 0 0
12.5 5.61 1.44 0.041 0.243 0.609 0.504 0.044 0
33.1 5.62 3.439 0.346 1.711 1.349 0.033 0 0
63.5 5.62 1.102 0.736 0.366 0 0 0 0
89.6 5.62 0.358 0.358 0 0 0 0 0
116.8 5.63 0.242 0.242 0 0 0 0 0
12.6 5.8 1.303 0.035 0.209 0.525 0.48 0.053 0
33.8 5.81 3.703 0.298 1.689 1.591 0.126 0 0
63.8 5.81 1.426 0.727 0.699 0 0 0 0
89.9 5.81 0.546 0.544 0.002 0 0 0 0
118.5 5.82 0.49 0.49 0 0 0 0 0
13.3 6.01 1.142 0.03 0.176 0.443 0.421 0.071 0.001
35 6.01 3.01 0.184 1.1 1.55 0.176 0 0
60.4 6.01 1.422 0.346 1.05 0.025 0 0 0
85.2 6.02 0.982 0.68 0.302 0 0 0 0
119.7 6.02 0.823 0.82 0.004 0 0 0 0
166.2 6.02 0.128 0.128 0 0 0 0 0
16.4 6.22 1.703 0.045 0.271 0.681 0.619 0.086 0.001
37.3 6.2 2.66 0.144 0.858 1.523 0.136 0 0
58.9 6.22 1.726 0.271 1.258 0.197 0 0 0
84.3 6.22 1.536 0.685 0.851 0 0 0 0
120.9 6.22 1.383 1.284 0.1 0 0 0 0
168.5 6.23 0.312 0.312 0 0 0 0 0
14.4 6.42 0.855 0.021 0.125 0.315 0.315 0.076 0.002
35.7 6.42 2.472 0.103 0.614 1.377 0.379 0 0
59.8 6.42 1.489 0.16 0.923 0.407 0 0 0
84.4 6.42 1.669 0.425 1.244 0 0 0 0
121.6 6.43 1.708 1.131 0.577 0 0 0 0
168.9 6.43 0.525 0.525 0 0 0 0 0
217.1 6.43 0.099 0.099 0 0 0 0 0
13.2 6.59 0.478 0.011 0.068 0.172 0.172 0.052 0.002
36.1 6.59 1.653 0.062 0.373 0.897 0.319 0.002 0
63.1 6.59 1.322 0.134 0.766 0.423 0 0 0
87.4 6.6 0.988 0.192 0.77 0.026 0 0 0
122.4 6.59 1.444 0.681 0.764 0 0 0 0
169.7 6.6 0.505 0.497 0.008 0 0 0 0
218.9 6.6 0.124 0.124 0 0 0 0 0
13.1 6.77 0.578 0.014 0.081 0.204 0.204 0.071 0.003
36.7 6.78 2.145 0.074 0.443 1.106 0.514 0.008 0
63 6.77 1.854 0.142 0.846 0.867 0 0 0
87.4 6.79 1.526 0.213 1.158 0.154 0 0 0
122.7 6.78 2.485 0.749 1.736 0 0 0 0
170.3 6.78 0.991 0.849 0.142 0 0 0 0
219.5 6.79 0.285 0.285 0 0 0 0 0
268.7 6.79 0.064 0.064 0 0 0 0 0
14.2 6.97 0.207 0.005 0.029 0.072 0.072 0.027 0.001
37.6 6.98 0.64 0.02 0.12 0.3 0.194 0.006 0
60.2 6.97 0.55 0.029 0.17 0.338 0.014 0 0
85.3 6.97 0.753 0.069 0.408 0.276 0 0 0
122.9 6.97 1.069 0.195 0.834 0.04 0 0 0
170.9 6.97 0.471 0.279 0.192 0 0 0 0
219.9 6.97 0.151 0.151 0 0 0 0 0
37.1 7.16 0.167 0.005 0.03 0.074 0.055 0.003 0
61.2 7.16 0.133 0.006 0.038 0.084 0.006 0 0
85 7.16 0.207 0.016 0.093 0.099 0 0 0
123.3 7.16 0.307 0.042 0.225 0.04 0 0 0
171.1 7.16 0.16 0.065 0.095 0 0 0 0
220.5 7.16 0.054 0.052 0.002 0 0 0 0

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:

Contribution from this GMPE(%): 100.0

Mean src-site R= 51.5 km; M= 5.81; eps0= 0.34. Mean calculated for all sources.

Modal src-site R= 13.4 km; M= 4.79; eps0= -0.26 from peak (R,M) bin

MODE R*= 12.2km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 3.118

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)

Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).

CEUS gridded 100.00 51.5 5.81 0.34

Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:

Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)

#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs
*********#

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W., lat: 37.500
N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).

NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below

Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.277E-04
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00207

#This deaggregation corresponds to Toro et al. 1997

DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1
-1<EPS<0 -2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
11.7 4.6 0.766 0.156 0.585 0.024 0 0 0
30.1 4.61 0.591 0.51 0.081 0 0 0 0
56.9 4.62 0.035 0.035 0 0 0 0 0
11.8 4.8 1.378 0.258 1.059 0.062 0 0 0
30.6 4.81 1.276 0.999 0.277 0 0 0 0
59.4 4.82 0.126 0.126 0 0 0 0 0
12.1 5.03 1.081 0.166 0.834 0.081 0 0 0
31.6 5.03 1.421 0.921 0.5 0 0 0 0
61.5 5.04 0.255 0.255 0 0 0 0 0
86.1 5.06 0.017 0.017 0 0 0 0 0
12.3 5.21 0.438 0.06 0.331 0.047 0 0 0
32.4 5.21 0.737 0.411 0.326 0 0 0 0
62.5 5.21 0.184 0.184 0 0 0 0 0
87.6 5.21 0.025 0.025 0 0 0 0 0
12.4 5.39 0.697 0.086 0.502 0.109 0 0 0
33.1 5.4 1.466 0.68 0.786 0 0 0 0
63.1 5.4 0.482 0.482 0.001 0 0 0 0
88.7 5.4 0.105 0.105 0 0 0 0 0
108.7 5.41 0.021 0.021 0 0 0 0 0
12.6 5.61 0.365 0.041 0.242 0.082 0 0 0
34.1 5.62 1.027 0.346 0.679 0.002 0 0 0
63.9 5.62 0.477 0.445 0.031 0 0 0 0
89.3 5.63 0.148 0.148 0 0 0 0 0
114.1 5.64 0.071 0.071 0 0 0 0 0
12.6 5.8 0.324 0.035 0.209 0.079 0 0 0
34.4 5.81 0.993 0.298 0.689 0.006 0 0 0
64.1 5.81 0.507 0.454 0.053 0 0 0 0
89.4 5.81 0.17 0.17 0 0 0 0 0
115.3 5.82 0.096 0.096 0 0 0 0 0
13.3 6.01 0.289 0.03 0.176 0.083 0 0 0
35.6 6.01 0.86 0.184 0.657 0.019 0 0 0
61.2 6.01 0.544 0.333 0.211 0 0 0 0
84.9 6.02 0.359 0.344 0.015 0 0 0 0
118.1 6.02 0.22 0.22 0 0 0 0 0
161.8 6.03 0.02 0.02 0 0 0 0 0
16.5 6.22 0.432 0.045 0.271 0.115 0 0 0
37.5 6.2 0.695 0.144 0.545 0.007 0 0 0
59.2 6.21 0.545 0.271 0.274 0 0 0 0
83.5 6.22 0.465 0.425 0.04 0 0 0 0
118.7 6.22 0.265 0.265 0 0 0 0 0
164.7 6.22 0.032 0.032 0 0 0 0 0
14.4 6.42 0.217 0.021 0.125 0.071 0 0 0
35.9 6.42 0.68 0.103 0.522 0.056 0 0 0
61.9 6.42 0.571 0.212 0.359 0 0 0 0
85.1 6.42 0.491 0.331 0.16 0 0 0 0
120.1 6.42 0.403 0.401 0.002 0 0 0 0
167.8 6.43 0.098 0.098 0 0 0 0 0
13.3 6.59 0.12 0.011 0.068 0.04 0 0 0
36.3 6.59 0.437 0.062 0.33 0.044 0 0 0
63.1 6.59 0.392 0.134 0.258 0 0 0 0
86.4 6.61 0.295 0.179 0.116 0 0 0 0
120.7 6.6 0.284 0.273 0.011 0 0 0 0
168.9 6.61 0.078 0.078 0 0 0 0 0
13.2 6.77 0.145 0.014 0.081 0.05 0 0 0
36.7 6.78 0.559 0.074 0.414 0.071 0 0 0
63.4 6.77 0.534 0.142 0.392 0 0 0 0
87 6.79 0.388 0.212 0.176 0 0 0 0
120.8 6.78 0.435 0.402 0.033 0 0 0 0
169.4 6.78 0.134 0.134 0 0 0 0 0
215.8 6.79 0.023 0.023 0 0 0 0 0
14.2 6.97 0.052 0.005 0.029 0.019 0 0 0
37.8 6.97 0.175 0.02 0.119 0.036 0 0 0
60.4 6.96 0.169 0.029 0.139 0.002 0 0 0
84.7 6.97 0.226 0.068 0.157 0 0 0 0
121.7 6.97 0.237 0.171 0.066 0 0 0 0
170.8 6.96 0.092 0.092 0 0 0 0 0
218.6 6.96 0.025 0.025 0 0 0 0 0
37.1 7.16 0.043 0.005 0.03 0.008 0 0 0
61.2 7.16 0.034 0.006 0.028 0 0 0 0
84.1 7.16 0.046 0.016 0.031 0 0 0 0
121.1 7.16 0.043 0.035 0.008 0 0 0 0
170 7.16 0.016 0.016 0 0 0 0 0

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:

Contribution from this GMPE(%): 27.5

Mean src-site R= 48.4 km; M= 5.77; eps0= 0.56. Mean calculated for all sources.

Modal src-site R= 33.1 km; M= 5.40; eps0= 0.69 from peak (R,M) bin

MODE R*= 11.9km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 1.059

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)

Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).

CEUS gridded 27.49 48.4 5.77 0.56

Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:

Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)

#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Toro et al. 1997 *********#

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W., lat: 37.500
N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).

NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below

Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.253E-05
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00058

#This deaggregation corresponds to Atkinson-Boore06,140 bar

DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1
-1<EPS<0 -2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
8.6 4.61 0.102 0.064 0.038 0 0 0 0
9.5 4.8 0.254 0.147 0.106 0 0 0 0
10.7 5.03 0.255 0.146 0.108 0 0 0 0
11.7 5.21 0.125 0.064 0.061 0 0 0 0
12.9 5.4 0.24 0.115 0.124 0 0 0 0
34 5.42 0.003 0.003 0 0 0 0 0
14.2 5.62 0.154 0.072 0.081 0 0 0 0
35.5 5.63 0.006 0.006 0 0 0 0 0
15.4 5.8 0.168 0.08 0.088 0 0 0 0
37 5.82 0.013 0.013 0 0 0 0 0
13.7 6.01 0.123 0.04 0.084 0 0 0 0
31.1 6.03 0.047 0.043 0.004 0 0 0 0
54.3 6.03 0.002 0.002 0 0 0 0 0
15 6.22 0.155 0.045 0.11 0 0 0 0
33.8 6.2 0.058 0.054 0.003 0 0 0 0
55.9 6.23 0.007 0.007 0 0 0 0 0
17.6 6.42 0.138 0.044 0.094 0 0 0 0
38.5 6.42 0.039 0.038 0 0 0 0 0
57.7 6.43 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
85.7 6.44 0.006 0.006 0 0 0 0 0
123.5 6.44 0.011 0.011 0 0 0 0 0
12.8 6.59 0.054 0.011 0.043 0 0 0 0
31.9 6.59 0.068 0.045 0.023 0 0 0 0
58.6 6.59 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
85.9 6.59 0.009 0.009 0 0 0 0 0
124.7 6.57 0.011 0.011 0 0 0 0 0
125.5 6.63 0.007 0.007 0 0 0 0 0
159.7 6.6 0.003 0.003 0 0 0 0 0
12.9 6.77 0.067 0.014 0.054 0 0 0 0
32.9 6.78 0.104 0.062 0.042 0 0 0 0
60.5 6.78 0.023 0.023 0 0 0 0 0
87.9 6.8 0.017 0.017 0 0 0 0 0
125.3 6.79 0.045 0.045 0 0 0 0 0
166.6 6.8 0.016 0.016 0 0 0 0 0
15.9 6.98 0.029 0.006 0.023 0 0 0 0
36.1 6.97 0.029 0.018 0.012 0 0 0 0
58.8 6.97 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
86.2 6.98 0.01 0.01 0 0 0 0 0
124.7 7.03 0.011 0.011 0 0 0 0 0
125.8 6.92 0.012 0.012 0 0 0 0 0
169.3 6.98 0.011 0.011 0 0 0 0 0
212.8 6.99 0.001 0.001 0 0 0 0 0
13.8 7.16 0.005 0.001 0.004 0 0 0 0
34.3 7.16 0.011 0.005 0.006 0 0 0 0
60.1 7.16 0.003 0.003 0 0 0 0 0
85.8 7.16 0.004 0.004 0 0 0 0 0
125.4 7.16 0.009 0.009 0 0 0 0 0
170.3 7.16 0.005 0.005 0 0 0 0 0

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:

Contribution from this GMPE(%): 2.5

Mean src-site R= 25.8 km; M= 5.83; eps0= 0.24. Mean calculated for all sources.

Modal src-site R= 10.7 km; M= 5.03; eps0= 0.25 from peak (R,M) bin

MODE R*= 11.0km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 0.147

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)

Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).

Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:

Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Atkinson-Boore06,140 bar
*********#

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W. lat:
37.500 N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.227E-04
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00331
#This deaggregation corresponds to Frankel et al. 1996
DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1 -1<EPS<0 -
2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
14.7 4.59 0.589 0.275 0.314 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
31.0 4.64 0.226 0.218 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.2 4.80 0.912 0.258 0.654 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30.1 4.80 0.951 0.836 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
57.6 4.82 0.053 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.4 5.03 0.683 0.166 0.517 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
31.3 5.03 1.026 0.781 0.246 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.1 5.04 0.136 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.4 5.08 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.6 5.21 0.266 0.060 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
32.2 5.21 0.522 0.353 0.170 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
62.4 5.21 0.106 0.106 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
89.3 5.21 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.7 5.39 0.410 0.086 0.323 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
33.1 5.40 1.027 0.623 0.404 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
63.2 5.41 0.295 0.295 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
89.9 5.41 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
115.4 5.42 0.076 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.7 5.61 0.203 0.041 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.1 5.62 0.649 0.339 0.310 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
64.0 5.62 0.270 0.270 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
90.1 5.62 0.120 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
119.5 5.62 0.138 0.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.8 5.80 0.181 0.035 0.146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.9 5.80 0.696 0.298 0.398 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
64.5 5.81 0.380 0.375 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
90.3 5.81 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
120.9 5.81 0.273 0.273 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
162.5 5.83 0.047 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.5 6.01 0.155 0.030 0.125 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35.8 6.01 0.525 0.184 0.341 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.8 6.01 0.324 0.282 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.9 6.02 0.298 0.298 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
121.5 6.01 0.369 0.369 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
167.8 6.02 0.096 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
16.7 6.23 0.235 0.045 0.189 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.8 6.20 0.464 0.144 0.320 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
59.3 6.21 0.390 0.269 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.1 6.22 0.465 0.463 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
122.5 6.22 0.605 0.605 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
169.9 6.22 0.217 0.217 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
214.9 6.24 0.036 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.5 6.42 0.113 0.021 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.2 6.42 0.392 0.103 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.2 6.42 0.300 0.159 0.141 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.1 6.42 0.432 0.397 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
123.1 6.42 0.621 0.621 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
170.3 6.43 0.285 0.285 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
218.2 6.43 0.074 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.4 6.59 0.062 0.011 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.7 6.59 0.258 0.062 0.196 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
64.1 6.59 0.275 0.134 0.141 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
88.1 6.60 0.249 0.191 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
123.8 6.59 0.495 0.491 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
171.1 6.59 0.256 0.256 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
219.5 6.59 0.084 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
266.9 6.60 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.2 6.77 0.074 0.014 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.2 6.77 0.327 0.074 0.253 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
63.7 6.77 0.359 0.142 0.218 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.8 6.79 0.367 0.213 0.155 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
124.0 6.78 0.770 0.678 0.092 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
171.7 6.78 0.451 0.451 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
220.2 6.79 0.173 0.173 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
268.9 6.79 0.044 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.2 6.97 0.026 0.005 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.9 6.98 0.093 0.020 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.5 6.97 0.092 0.029 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.7 6.97 0.154 0.068 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
124.2 6.97 0.276 0.194 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
172.3 6.97 0.176 0.175 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
220.7 6.97 0.074 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
270.2 6.98 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.6 7.16 0.024 0.005 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.5 7.16 0.023 0.006 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.4 7.16 0.042 0.016 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
124.5 7.16 0.078 0.042 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
172.7 7.16 0.059 0.056 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
221.2 7.16 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Contribution from this GMPE(%): 22.5
Mean src-site R= 69.4 km; M= 5.90; eps0= 0.56. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 33.1 km; M= 5.40; eps0= 0.42 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 30.7km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 0.836

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).
CEUS gridded 22.46 69.4 5.90 0.56
Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Frankel et al., 1996 *********#

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W., lat: 37.500
N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.146E-04
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00385
#This deaggregation corresponds to Campbell CEUS Hybrid
DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1 -1<EPS<0 -
2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
16.1 4.60 0.902 0.406 0.496 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.0 4.61 0.085 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17.1 4.80 1.808 0.755 1.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.5 4.80 0.252 0.252 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
54.0 4.82 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.5 5.03 0.795 0.166 0.629 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
29.3 5.03 0.959 0.648 0.311 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
55.7 5.04 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.7 5.21 0.300 0.060 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30.0 5.21 0.476 0.287 0.190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
56.9 5.21 0.021 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.8 5.39 0.450 0.086 0.364 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30.9 5.40 0.923 0.502 0.421 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
59.1 5.41 0.067 0.067 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.9 5.61 0.218 0.041 0.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
32.0 5.62 0.595 0.288 0.307 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.4 5.62 0.070 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
89.3 5.63 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.9 5.80 0.190 0.035 0.155 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
33.0 5.80 0.652 0.283 0.368 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.2 5.81 0.113 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
89.9 5.82 0.029 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
113.7 5.83 0.020 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.6 6.01 0.161 0.030 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.5 6.01 0.511 0.184 0.327 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
58.4 6.01 0.132 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.2 6.02 0.057 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
116.8 6.02 0.043 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
16.9 6.23 0.246 0.045 0.201 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.1 6.20 0.465 0.144 0.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
57.7 6.22 0.200 0.179 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
84.4 6.22 0.115 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
119.1 6.22 0.098 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.6 6.42 0.115 0.021 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35.8 6.42 0.411 0.103 0.308 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
58.8 6.42 0.178 0.134 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
84.5 6.43 0.139 0.139 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
120.1 6.43 0.134 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
158.3 6.44 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.4 6.59 0.063 0.011 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.4 6.59 0.275 0.062 0.213 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
62.0 6.59 0.168 0.115 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.6 6.60 0.097 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
120.9 6.59 0.133 0.133 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
161.1 6.59 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.2 6.77 0.075 0.014 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.2 6.78 0.352 0.074 0.278 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.8 6.77 0.257 0.140 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.3 6.79 0.179 0.171 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
121.3 6.79 0.268 0.268 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
164.2 6.79 0.042 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.3 6.97 0.027 0.005 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
38.1 6.98 0.102 0.020 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
59.7 6.97 0.081 0.029 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.3 6.98 0.092 0.068 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
121.7 6.98 0.123 0.121 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
166.0 6.98 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.8 7.16 0.026 0.005 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.9 7.16 0.022 0.006 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.1 7.16 0.031 0.016 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
122.3 7.16 0.044 0.037 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
166.7 7.16 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Contribution from this GMPE(%): 14.5
Mean src-site R= 37.9 km; M= 5.66; eps0= -0.22. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 17.1 km; M= 4.80; eps0= -0.45 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 14.5km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 1.053

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).
CEUS gridded 14.51 37.9 5.66 -0.22
Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Campbell CEUS Hybrid
*********#

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W., lat: 37.500
N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.153E-04
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00185
#This deaggregation corresponds to Silva 1-corner
DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1 -1<EPS<0 -
2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
11.6 4.60 0.317 0.156 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
29.9 4.61 0.248 0.248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
55.5 4.62 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11.8 4.80 0.633 0.258 0.376 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30.8 4.80 0.668 0.662 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
58.2 4.81 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.1 5.03 0.496 0.166 0.329 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
31.9 5.03 0.723 0.658 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.2 5.04 0.129 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.2 5.21 0.201 0.060 0.142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
32.7 5.21 0.370 0.307 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
62.3 5.21 0.096 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
86.5 5.21 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.4 5.39 0.323 0.086 0.236 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
33.5 5.40 0.731 0.550 0.181 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
63.1 5.40 0.259 0.259 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
88.6 5.41 0.055 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.5 5.61 0.168 0.041 0.127 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.3 5.62 0.478 0.315 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
63.9 5.62 0.230 0.230 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
89.3 5.62 0.070 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
111.3 5.63 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.6 5.80 0.155 0.035 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.9 5.80 0.525 0.296 0.229 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
64.4 5.81 0.320 0.320 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
89.6 5.81 0.120 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
116.1 5.82 0.078 0.078 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.3 6.01 0.136 0.030 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35.8 6.01 0.407 0.184 0.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.8 6.01 0.273 0.258 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
84.7 6.02 0.203 0.203 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
118.4 6.02 0.129 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
160.4 6.03 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
16.5 6.23 0.207 0.045 0.162 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.8 6.20 0.369 0.144 0.225 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
59.5 6.21 0.334 0.262 0.072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
83.9 6.22 0.336 0.336 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
119.9 6.22 0.241 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
167.5 6.23 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.4 6.42 0.104 0.021 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.1 6.42 0.326 0.103 0.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.3 6.42 0.262 0.159 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
84.2 6.42 0.328 0.318 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
120.9 6.43 0.279 0.279 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
169.6 6.43 0.093 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
215.1 6.44 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.2 6.59 0.059 0.011 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.5 6.59 0.220 0.062 0.157 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
64.1 6.59 0.242 0.134 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.5 6.60 0.188 0.172 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
121.8 6.59 0.244 0.244 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
170.9 6.59 0.097 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
218.8 6.59 0.029 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.1 6.77 0.071 0.014 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.1 6.78 0.285 0.074 0.211 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
63.7 6.77 0.319 0.142 0.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.3 6.79 0.288 0.212 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
122.4 6.78 0.419 0.417 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
171.5 6.79 0.199 0.199 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
220.2 6.79 0.075 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
268.9 6.80 0.019 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.2 6.97 0.025 0.005 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.8 6.98 0.083 0.020 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.5 6.97 0.083 0.029 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.1 6.97 0.125 0.068 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
122.8 6.97 0.163 0.153 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
172.2 6.97 0.089 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
221.0 6.98 0.038 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
270.8 6.98 0.013 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.4 7.16 0.022 0.005 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.5 7.16 0.021 0.006 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
84.9 7.16 0.036 0.016 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
123.3 7.16 0.050 0.040 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
172.6 7.16 0.033 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
221.6 7.16 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Contribution from this GMPE(%): 15.2
Mean src-site R= 58.4 km; M= 5.87; eps0= 0.70. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 33.5 km; M= 5.40; eps0= 0.74 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 30.9km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 0.662

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).
CEUS gridded 15.19 58.4 5.87 0.70
Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Silva 1-corner *********#

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W., lat: 37.500
N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.142E-04
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00371
#This deaggregation corresponds to Tavakoli and Pezeshk 05
DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1 -1<EPS<0 -
2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
14.2 4.60 0.603 0.279 0.323 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.9 4.62 0.018 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
15.6 4.80 1.361 0.620 0.742 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.2 4.81 0.089 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17.3 5.03 1.223 0.489 0.734 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.3 5.04 0.166 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.6 5.21 0.292 0.060 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
29.1 5.21 0.373 0.239 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
55.3 5.21 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.7 5.39 0.446 0.086 0.360 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30.3 5.40 0.812 0.452 0.361 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
57.5 5.42 0.038 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.9 5.61 0.218 0.041 0.177 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
31.7 5.62 0.578 0.278 0.301 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
59.7 5.62 0.054 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
89.2 5.63 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.9 5.80 0.191 0.035 0.156 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
33.0 5.81 0.669 0.283 0.386 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.8 5.81 0.105 0.105 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
90.1 5.82 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
115.3 5.83 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.6 6.01 0.162 0.030 0.132 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.7 6.01 0.546 0.184 0.362 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
58.2 6.01 0.141 0.139 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.6 6.02 0.064 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
118.6 6.02 0.062 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
17.0 6.23 0.248 0.045 0.202 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.3 6.20 0.509 0.144 0.366 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
57.6 6.22 0.231 0.191 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
84.9 6.22 0.142 0.142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
120.4 6.23 0.151 0.151 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
157.9 6.24 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.6 6.42 0.115 0.021 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.2 6.42 0.445 0.103 0.342 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
58.8 6.42 0.215 0.144 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
84.9 6.43 0.182 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
121.1 6.43 0.215 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
161.5 6.43 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.4 6.59 0.063 0.011 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.9 6.59 0.295 0.062 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
62.2 6.59 0.207 0.126 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.9 6.60 0.133 0.133 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
121.9 6.59 0.218 0.218 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
164.3 6.59 0.036 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.2 6.77 0.075 0.014 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.6 6.77 0.373 0.074 0.299 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
62.0 6.77 0.314 0.142 0.173 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
87.5 6.79 0.246 0.206 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
122.3 6.79 0.437 0.433 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
166.1 6.79 0.094 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.3 6.97 0.027 0.005 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
38.4 6.98 0.106 0.020 0.086 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
59.9 6.97 0.096 0.029 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.7 6.97 0.124 0.068 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
122.6 6.98 0.196 0.167 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
167.2 6.98 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
38.0 7.16 0.027 0.005 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.1 7.16 0.025 0.006 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.4 7.16 0.040 0.016 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
123.2 7.16 0.067 0.042 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
167.7 7.16 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Contribution from this GMPE(%): 14.1
Mean src-site R= 44.4 km; M= 5.83; eps0= -0.21. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 15.6 km; M= 4.80; eps0= -0.27 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 12.3km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 0.742

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).
CEUS gridded 14.06 44.4 5.83 -0.21
Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Tavakoli and Pezeshk 05
*********#

PSHA Deaggregation. %contributions. site: White_Mesa long: 109.500 W., lat: 37.500
N.
Vs30(m/s)= 760.0 (some WUS atten. models use Site Class not Vs30).
NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128. dM=0.2 below
Return period: 9900 yrs. Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g. Weight * Computed_Rate_Ex
0.381E-05
#Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00086
#This deaggregation corresponds to Atkinson-Boore06,200 bar
DIST(KM) MAG(MW) ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 0<EPS<1 -1<EPS<0 -
2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2
9.3 4.61 0.146 0.084 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
10.3 4.80 0.357 0.207 0.150 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
11.7 5.03 0.353 0.178 0.175 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.9 5.21 0.171 0.081 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
33.9 5.21 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
14.1 5.40 0.325 0.151 0.174 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35.4 5.42 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
15.5 5.61 0.205 0.097 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
37.0 5.62 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
15.3 5.79 0.189 0.074 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
31.6 5.84 0.062 0.055 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
55.1 5.83 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
12.9 6.01 0.127 0.030 0.098 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
30.9 6.01 0.103 0.084 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
56.2 6.02 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
15.6 6.22 0.180 0.045 0.135 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
34.6 6.20 0.101 0.086 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
57.0 6.22 0.019 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
86.0 6.23 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
124.0 6.24 0.021 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
18.3 6.42 0.163 0.044 0.120 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
39.0 6.42 0.068 0.059 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
58.3 6.43 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.9 6.43 0.021 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
124.7 6.35 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
125.1 6.45 0.036 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
162.5 6.44 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.1 6.59 0.058 0.011 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
33.0 6.59 0.100 0.056 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
58.9 6.59 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
86.0 6.59 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
125.6 6.59 0.052 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
167.5 6.59 0.020 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.0 6.77 0.071 0.014 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
33.9 6.78 0.146 0.072 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
61.2 6.78 0.048 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
88.0 6.79 0.040 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
125.7 6.79 0.111 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
169.6 6.79 0.055 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
214.6 6.81 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
16.2 6.98 0.031 0.006 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
36.9 6.97 0.041 0.019 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
59.2 6.97 0.018 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
86.2 6.98 0.022 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
124.7 7.07 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
125.7 6.96 0.042 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
170.7 6.98 0.029 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
218.5 6.98 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
13.8 7.16 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
35.2 7.16 0.014 0.005 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
60.4 7.16 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
85.8 7.16 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
125.6 7.16 0.018 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
171.2 7.16 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
219.9 7.16 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, R=distance, e=epsilon:
Contribution from this GMPE(%): 3.8
Mean src-site R= 36.7 km; M= 5.89; eps0= 0.31. Mean calculated for all sources.
Modal src-site R= 10.3 km; M= 4.80; eps0= 0.25 from peak (R,M) bin
MODE R*= 12.3km; M*= 4.80; EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.= 0.207

Principal sources (faults, subduction, random seismicity having > 3% contribution)
Source Category: % contr. R(km) M epsilon0 (mean values).
CEUS gridded 3.77 36.7 5.89 0.31
Individual fault hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard > 2%:
Fault ID % contr. Rcd(km) M epsilon0 Site-to-src azimuth(d)
#*********End of deaggregation corresponding to Atkinson-Boore06,200 bar
*********#

******************** Intermountain Seismic
Belt***********************************

APPENDIX 4: DETERMINATION OF PEAK GROUND
ACCELERATIONS (PGA) USING CAMPBELL AND
BOZORGNIA (2007)

CALCUATION OF GROUND MOTION FOR CAMPBELL-BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008, EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA):
Explanatory Variables Geometric Mean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components
M GMP T (s) Median a C1 T O'c C1r a.,. Median
5.49 PSA(g) 0.010 2.221E·02 -0.0065 0.4761 0.2190 0.1660 0.5241 0.5497 +sigma
0.020 2.249E-02 -0.0067 0.4781 0.2190 0.1660 0.5258 0.5514
R RIJP 0.030 2.364E-02 -0.0081 0.4867 0.2350 0.1650 0.5404 0.5651
57.40 0.050 2.778E-02 -0.0125 0.5064 0.2580 0.1620 0.5683 0.5910
0.075 3.490E-02 -0.0147 0.5159 0.2920 0.1580 0.5928 0.6135
R;s 0.10 4.211E-02 -0.0144 0.5270 0.2860 0.1700 0.5996 0.6233
57.40 0.15 5.324E·02 ·0.0110 0.5290 0.2800 0.1800 0.5985 0.6250
0.20 5.352E-02 -0.0068 0.5322 0.2490 0.1860 0.5875 0.6163
FRv 0.25 4.702E-02 -0.0031 0.5332 0.2400 0.1910 0.5847 0.6151
0 0.30 4.173E-02 0.0000 0.5440 0.2150 0.1980 0.5849 0.6175
0.40 3.216E-02 0.0000 0.5410 0.2170 0.2060 0.5829 0.6182
FHM 0.50 2.604E-02 0.0000 0.5500 0.2140 0.2080 0.5902 0.6257
0.75 1.565E-02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2270 0.2210 0.6117 0.6504
1.0 1.012E·02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2550 0.2250 0.6226 0.6620
ZroR_ 1.5 5.153E-03 0.0000 0.5640 0.2960 0.2220 0.6370 0.6745
3.00 2.0 2.884E-03 0.0000 0.5710 0.2960 0.2260 0.8432 0.6817
3.0 1.221E-03 0.0000 0.5580 0.3260 0.2290 0.8463 0.6856
0 4.0 6.337E-04 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.8481 0.6900
60 5.0 3.953E-04 0.0000 0.6010 0.3590 0.2370 0.7001 0.7391
7.5 1.739E-04 0.0000 0.6280 0.4280 0.2710 0.7600 0.8069
Vs,. 10.0 9.719E-05 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742
586
PGA(g) 0 I 2.221 E-02 I -0.0065 0.4761 0.2190 0.1660 0.5241 0.5497 ~
z 2.5 PGV (c/s) ·1 1.063E+00 0.0000 0.4840 0.2030 0.1900 0.5248 0.5582
0.00 PGD(cm) -2 2.413E·01 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742
Calculated Variables
Anoo
1.803E-02
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS:
PSA = Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g; 5% damping)
PGA = Peak ground acceleration (g)
PGV = Peak ground velocity (cm/s)
PGD = Peak ground displacement (em)
M = Moment magnitude
RRuP = Closest distance to coseismic rupture (km}
R;s = Closest distance to surlace projection of coseismic rupture (km)
FRv = Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, normal, normal-oblique; 1 for reverse, reverse-oblique and thrust
F NI.f = Nonmat-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, reverse, reverse·oblique and thrust; 1 for normal and normal-oblique
ZroR = Depth to top of coseismic rupture (km)
0 = Average dip of rupture plane (degrees) v.,, = Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site profile
A11oo = PGA on rock with Vs30 = 1 100 m/s (g)
z2.s = Depth of 2.5 km/s shear-wave velocity horizon (km)
:§
t:: .g
~ 4> o; u u ct
~ 0 4> Q, {/)
5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration
Response Spectrum
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
....
0.1
......
I'
' i
I
i
Period (s)
Unnamed fault possible extention of Shays graben defined length 3.0 km
10
CALCUATION OF GROUND MOTION FOR CAMPBELL-BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008, EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA):
Explanatory Variables Geometric Mean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components
M GMP T {s) Median a a 't ac a r a.,. Median
6.23 PSA(g) 0.010 3.622E-02 -0.0104 0.4750 0.2190 0.1660 0.5230 0.5487 +Sigma
0.020 3.667E-02 -0.0107 0.4769 0.2190 0.1660 0.5248 0.5504
RRuP 0.030 3.852E-02 -0.0130 0.4852 0.2350 0.1650 0.5391 0.5638
57.40 0.050 4.513E-02 -0.0202 0.5042 0.2580 0.1620 0.5664 0.5891
0.075 5.664E-02 -0.0236 0.5134 0.2920 0.1580 0.5906 0.61 14
RJs 0.10 6.838E-02 -0.0231 0.5247 0.2860 0.1700 0.5975 0.6213
57.40 0.15 8.664E-02 -0.0178 0.5271 0.2800 0.1800 0.5969 0.6234
0.20 9.283E-02 -0.0111 0.5310 0.2490 0.1860 0.5865 0.6153
FRv 0.25 8.689E-02 -0.0050 0.5327 0.2400 0.1910 0.5843 0.6147
0 0.30 8.119E-02 -0.0001 0.5440 0.2150 0.1980 0.5849 0.6175
0.40 6.769E-02 0.0000 0.5410 0.2170 0.2060 0.5829 0.6182
FNM 0.50 5.644E-02 0.0000 0.5500 0.2140 0.2080 0.5902 0.6257
0.75 3.507E-02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2270 0.2210 0.6117 0.6504
1.0 2.323E-02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2550 0.2250 0.6226 0.6620
ZToR 1.5 1.225E-02 0.0000 0.5640 0.2960 0.2220 0.6370 0.6745
3.00 2.0 7.683E-03 0.0000 0.5710 0.2960 0.2260 0.6432 0.6817
3.0 4.170E-03 0.0000 0.5580 0.3260 0.2290 0.6463 0.6856
0 4.0 2.737E-03 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.6481 0.6900
60 I 5.0 2.043E-03 0.0000 0.6010 0.3590 0.2370 0.7001 0.7391
7.5 8.990E-04 0.0000 0.6280 0.4280 0.2710 0.7600 0.8069
Vs:~o 10.0 5.024E-04 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742
586
PGA(g) 0 I 3.622E-02 I -0.0104 0.4750 0.2190 0.1660 0.5230 0.5487 ~
z2.s PGV (cis) -1 2.365E+00 0.0000 0.4840
0.00 PGD(cm) -2 1.247E+00 0.0000 0.6670
Calculated Variables
A ,,oo
2.952E-02
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS:
PSA
PGA
PGV
= Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g; 5% damping)
= Peak ground acceleralion (g)
= Peak ground velocity (cm/s)
PGD = Peak ground displacement (em)
M = Moment magnitude
R RUP = Closest distance to coseismic rupture (km}
R JB = Closest distance to surface projection of coseismic rupture {km)
0.2030 0.1900 0.5248
0.4850 0.2900 0.8247
F RV ; Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, normal, normal-oblique; 1 tor reverse, reverse-oblique and thrust
0.5582
0.8742
F NM = Normal-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, reverse, reverse-oblique and thrust: 1 for normal and normal-oblique
z roR = Depth to top of coseismic rupture (km)
.5 = Average dip of rupture plane (degrees)
V 830 = Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site prolile
A"" = PGA on rock with Vs30 = 1100 m/s (g)
Z 2.5 = Depth of 2.5 krnls shear-wave velocity horizon (km)
~ c: 0 -~
"' Qi 0 0 <(
"§!
0 "' c. rJ)
5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration
Response Spectrum
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
O.o1
1\
fll
0.1
Period (s)
Unnamed fault possible extention of Shays graben total possible length 11.0 km
10
CALCUATION OF GROUND MOTION FOR CAMPBELL·BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008, EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA):
Explanatory Variables Geometric Mean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components
M GMP T(s) Median a (]' 'f ac ar a..,. Median
5.84 PSA(g) 0.010 2.807E·02 ·0.0081 0.4756 0.2190 0.1660 0.5236 0.5493 +sigma
0.020 2.843E-02 -0.0084 0.4776 0.2190 0.1660 0.5254 0.5510
R RUP 0.030 2.988E-02 ·0.0101 0.4861 0.2350 0.1650 0.5399 0.5645
57.40 0.050 3.506E-02 ·0.0158 0.5054 0.2580 0.1620 0.5675 0.5902
0.075 4.402E-02 ·0.0184 0.5149 0.2920 0.1580 0.5919 0.6126
R JB 0.10 5.314E-02 ·0.0181 0.5260 0.2860 0.1700 0.5988 0.6224
57.40 0.15 6.724E-02 ·0.0139 0.5282 0.2800 0.1800 0.5978 0.6243
0.20 6.963E·02 ·0.0086 0.5317 0.2490 0.1860 0.5871 0.6159
FRv 0.25 6.299E·02 ·0.0039 0.5330 0.2400 0.1910 0.5845 0.6149
0 0.30 5.726E-02 ·0.0001 0.5440 0.2150 0.1980 0.5849 0.6175
0.40 4.577E·02 0.0000 0.5410 0.2170 0.2060 0.5829 0.6182
FNI, 0.50 3.760E·02 0.0000 0.5500 0.2140 0.2080 0.5902 0.6257
0.75 2.299E·02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2270 0.2210 0.6117 0.6504
1.0 1.505E·02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2550 0.2250 0.6226 0.6620
ZroR 1.5 7.803E-03 0.0000 0.5640 0.2960 0.2220 0.6370 0.6745
3.00 2.0 4.608E·03 0.0000 0.5710 0.2960 0.2260 0.6432 0.6817
3.0 2.190E-03 0.0000 0.5580 0.3260 0.2290 0.6463 0.6856
0 4.0 1.268E·03 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.6481 0.6900
60 I 5.0 8.600E·04 0.0000 0.6010 0.3590 0.2370 0.7001 0.7391
7.5 3.784E·04 0.0000 0.6280 0.4280 0.2710 0.7600 0.8069
Vs3o 10.0 2.114E-04 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742
586
PGA(g) 0 I 2.807E·02 I ·0.0081 0.4756 0.2190 0.1660 0.5236 0.5493 ~
z 2.s PGV (cis) ·1 1.554E+00 0.0000 0.4840 0.2030 0.1900 0.5248 0.5582
0.00 PGD (em) ·2 5.249E·01 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742
Calculated Variables
Anoo
2.283E·02
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS:
PSA = Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g; 5% damping)
PGA = Peak ground acceleration (g)
PGV = Peak ground velocity (cm/s)
PGD = Peak ground displacement (em)
M ;;; Moment magnitude
R RuP = Closest distance to coseismic rupture (km}
R JB :;; Closest distance to surtace projection of coseismic rupture (km)
FRv = Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, normal, normal-oblique: 1 for reverse, reverse-oblique and thrust
FNM = NormaHaulting factor: 0 for strike slip, reverse, reverse-oblique and thrust; 1 for normal and normal-oblique
Z mR = Depth to top of coseismic rupture (km)
0 = Average dip of rupture plane (degrees)
v S30 = Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site profile
A 1100 = PGA on rock with Vs30 = 1100 mls (g)
z:2.s = Depth of 2.5 km/s shear-wave velocity horizon (km)
§
c: 0 . .,
~ .. Qj u u <(
~ u .. a. (/)
5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration
Response Spectrum
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01 0.1
~
'\.
' \
Period (s)
Unnamed fault possible extention of Shays graben 112 total rupture 5.5 km
10
CALCUATION OF GROUND MOTION FOR CAMPBELL·BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008, EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA):
Explanatory Variables Geometric Mean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components
M GMP T (s) Median a u T u c Ur u.,. Median
6.97 PSA(g) 0.010 5.192E-02 -0.0148 0.4737 0.2190 0.1660 0.5219 0.5477 +sigma
0.020 5.257E-02 -0.0152 0.4756 0.2190 0.1660 0.5236 0.5493
RRuP 0.030 5.516E·02 ·0.0184 0.4837 0.2350 0.1650 0.5378 0.5625
57.40 0.050 6.428E-02 -0.0285 0.5018 0.2580 0.1620 0.5642 0.5870
0.075 7.926E-02 -0.0333 0.5107 0.2920 0.1580 0.5883 0.6092
R ;s 0.10 9.475E-02 -0.0327 0.5221 0.2860 0.1700 0.5953 0.6191
57.40 0.15 1.195E·01 ·0.0252 0.5251 0.2800 0.1800 0.5951 0.6218
0.20 1.329E·01 ·0.0157 0.5298 0.2490 0.1860 0.5854 0.6142
FRv 0.25 1.290E-01 ·0.0071 0.5321 0.2400 0.1910 0.5838 0.6142
0 0.30 1.239E-01 ·0.0001 0.5440 0.2150 0.1980 0.5849 0.6175
0.40 1.077E·01 0.0000 0.5410 0.2170 0.2060 0.5829 0.6182
FNM 0.50 9.478E·02 0.0000 0.5500 0.2140 0.2080 0.5902 0.6257
0.75 6.458E-02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2270 0.2210 0.6117 0.6504
1.0 4.566E·02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2550 0.2250 0.6226 0.6620
ZroR 1.5 2.641E·02 0.0000 0.5840 0.2960 0.2220 0.6370 0.6745
3.00 2.0 1.814E-02 0.0000 0.5710 0.2960 0.2260 0.8432 0.6817
3.0 1.123E·02 0.0000 0.5580 0.3260 0.2290 0.8463 0.6856
6 4.0 8.208E·03 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.8481 0.6900 .
60 L 5.0 6.640E·03 0.0000 0.6010 0.3590 0.2370 0.7001 0.7391
7.5 3.412E·03 0.0000 0.6280 0.4280 0.2710 0.7600 0.8069
Vs:JCI 10.0 2.128E·03 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742
586
PGA(g) 0 I 5.192E·02 I -0.0148 0.4737 0.2190 0.1660 0.5219 0.5477 ~
z 2.s PGV (c/s) ·1 5.196E+00 0.0000 0.4840
0.00 PGD (em) ·2 6.442E+00 0.0000 0.6670
Calculated Variables
A 11oo
4.252E-02
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS:
PSA
PGA
PGV
PGD
Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g; 5% damping)
Peak ground acceleration (g)
Peak ground velocity (cmls)
= Peak ground displacement (em)
M = Moment magnitude
R •u• = Closest distance to coseismic rupture (km)
R ;8 = Closest distance to surtace projection of coseismic rupture (km)
0.2030 0.1900 0.5248
0.4850 0.2900 0.8247
F Rv = Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, normal, normal-oblique; 1 for reverse, reverse-oblique and thrust
0.5582
0.8742
F NM = Normal-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, reverse, reverse-oblique and thrust; 1 for normal and normal-oblique
Z ro• = Depth to top of coseismic rupture (km)
6 = Average dip of rupture plane (degrees)
V 530 = Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site profile
A "" = PGA on rock with Vs30 = 1100 m/s (g)
Z '·' = Depth of 2.5 kmls shear-wave velocity horizon (km)
§
c: 0 ·~
Cl Gi " " <(
~ 0 Cl c.
Cll
Shay graben faults (Class B) 40.0 km
5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration
Response Spectrum
10
0.1
0,01
0.001
0,01
./ r-r--,
" ' \
0.1
Period (s)
10
CALCUATION OF GROUND MOTION FOR CAMPBELL·BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008, EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA):
Explanatory Variables Geometric Mean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components
M GMP T (s) Median a a
6.30 PSA(g) 0.010 1.409E-01 ·0.0372 0.4673
0.020 1.434E-01 -0.0383 0.4690
R RUP 0.030 1.540E·01 ·0.0461 0.4757
15.00 0.050 1.889E·01 -0.0707 0.4898
0.075 2.503E·01 ·0.0825 0.4973
R JB 0.10 3.092E·01 ·0.0813 0.5090
15.00 0.15 3.840E-01 ·0.0634 0.5149
0.20 3.923E-01 ·0.0399 0.5234
FRv 0.25 3.519E·01 ·0.0182 0.5293
0 0.30 3.180E·01 ·0.0003 0.5439
0.40 2.614E·01 0.0000 0.5410
FHM 0.50 2.138E·01 0.0000 0.5500
0.75 1.278E·01 0.0000 0.5680
1.0 8.480E·02 0.0000 0.5680
Z roR 1.5 4.485E-02 0.0000 0.5640
3.00 2.0 2.844E-02 0.0000 0.5710
3.0 1.581E-02 0.0000 0.5580
t5 4.0 1.061E·02 0.0000 0.5760
60 I 5.0 8.060E-03 0.0000 0.6010
7.5 3.546E-03 0.0000 0.6280 v.,. 10.0 1.982E-03 0.0000 0.6670
586
PGA(g) 0 I 1.409E-01 I ·0.0372 0.4673
z2.5 PGV (c/s) ·1 8.793E+00 0.0000 0.4840
0.00 PGD (cm) ·2 4.919E+00 0.0000 0.6670
Calculated Variables
A11oo
1.183E-01
DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS:
PSA
PGA
PGV
; Pseudo-absolute acceleralion response spectrum (g; 5% damping}
Peak ground acceleration (g)
Peak ground velocity (cm/s)
PGD ; Peak ground displacement (em)
M ; Moment magnitude
R RUP = Closest distance to coseismic rupture (km)
R Js = Closest distance to surface projection of coseismic rupture (km)
'r ac
0.2190 0.1660
0.2190 0.1660
0.2350 0.1650
0.2580 0.1620
0.2920 0.1580
0.2860 0.1700
0.2800 0.1800
0.2490 0.1860
0.2400 0.1910
0.2150 0.1980
0.2170 0.2060
0.2140 0.2080
0.2270 0.2210
0.2550 0.2250
0.2960 0.2220
0.2960 0.2260
0.3260 0.2290
0.2970 0.2370
0.3590 0.2370
0.4280 0.2710
0.4850 0.2900
0.2190 0.1660
0.2030 0.1900
0.4850 0.2900
a,
0.5161
0.5176
0.5306
0.5536
0.5767
0.5838
0.5861
0.5796
0.5811
0.5849
0.5829
0.5902
0.6117
0.6226
0.6370
0.6432
0.6463
0.6481
0.7001
0.7600
0.8247
0.5161
0.5248
0.8247
F Rv = Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, normal, normal-oblique; 1 for reverse. reverse-oblique and thrust
a.,.
0.5421
0.5436
0.5557
0.5768
0.5979
0.6081
0.6131
0.6087
0.6117
0.6175
0.6182
0.6257
0.6504
0.6620
0.6745
0.6817
0.6856
0.6900
0.7391
0.8069
0.8742
0.5421
0.5582
0.8742
F HM = Normal-faulting factor: 0 for strike slip, reverse. reverse-oblique and thrust: 1 for normal and normal-oblique
Z TOR ; Depth to top of coseismic rupture (km)
t5 ; Average dip of rupture plane (degrees)
V 530 = Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site profile
A ,00 = PGA on rock with Vs30; 1100 m/s (g)
Z 2.5 ; Depth of 2.5 km/s shear-wave velocity horizon (km)
Median
+sigma
:§
c: .2
'" iii Qi <.> <.> <
~ ~ 0 .,
c. en
5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration
Response Spectrum
10
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
/
.....
0.1
........
"'
' \.
\
Period (s)
Floating Earthquake • Conservative Assu~tion
10

ATTA
SLOPE/W
ACHMENT E
MODEL RE
Update
E.2
ESULTS
ed Tailings Coover Design RReport

4.
3
0
Re
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
v
e
r
Ta
i
l
i
n
g
s
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Dik
e
Be
d
r
o
c
k
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
De
n
i
s
o
n

M
i
n
e
s
Wh
i
t
e

M
e
s
a

M
i
l
l
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

A
Sl
o
p
e

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
CA
S
E

1

-

S
t
a
t
i
c

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

=

1
.
5
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
m
)
10
0

1
5
0

2
0
0

2
5
0

3
0
0

3
5
0

4
0
0

4
5
0

5
0
0

5
5
0

6
0
0

6
5
0

7
0
0

7
5
0

8
0
0

8
5
0

9
0
0

9
5
0
Elevation (m) (x 1000)
5.
4
0
5.
4
2
5.
4
4
5.
4
6
5.
4
8
5.
5
0
5.
5
2
5.
5
4
5.
5
6
5.
5
8
5.
6
0
5.
6
2
5.
6
4
5.
6
6
5.
6
8
5.
7
0

2.
8
2
Re
c
l
a
m
a
t
i
o
n

C
o
v
e
r
Ta
i
l
i
n
g
s
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
De
n
i
s
o
n

M
i
n
e
s
Wh
i
t
e

M
e
s
a

M
i
l
l
Cr
o
s
s

S
e
c
t
i
o
n

A
Sl
o
p
e

S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
Di
k
e
Be
d
r
o
c
k
Fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
CA
S
E

2

-

P
s
e
u
d
o
-
S
t
a
t
i
c

(
k

=

0
.
1
g
)

L
o
a
d
i
n
g

C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Re
q
u
i
r
e
d

F
a
c
t
o
r

o
f

S
a
f
e
t
y

=

1
.
1
Di
s
t
a
n
c
e

(
m
)
10
0

1
5
0

2
0
0

2
5
0

3
0
0

3
5
0

4
0
0

4
5
0

5
0
0

5
5
0

6
0
0

6
5
0

7
0
0

7
5
0

8
0
0

8
5
0

9
0
0

9
5
0
Elevation (m) (x 1000)
5.
4
0
5.
4
2
5.
4
4
5.
4
6
5.
4
8
5.
5
0
5.
5
2
5.
5
4
5.
5
6
5.
5
8
5.
6
0
5.
6
2
5.
6
4
5.
6
6
5.
6
8
5.
7
0

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX F

SETTLEMENT AND LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
F-1 September 2011
F.1 BACKGROUND

This appendix presents the results of modeling settlement and liquefaction potential of tailings
for the White Mesa Uranium Mill tailings disposal cells. Settlement analysis for the tailings
disposal cells has not been previously conducted. These analyses have been performed to
estimate future settlement due to tailings dewatering and cover loading. The liquefaction
analysis is an update to modeling presented in Attachment E of Revision 4.0 of the Reclamation
Plan (Denison, 2009). The updated modeling incorporates a more recent reference (Youd et al.
2001) and modifications to the proposed cover to incorporate an evapotranspiration (ET) cover.

The monolithic ET cover system evaluated in this appendix consists of the following layers from
top to bottom:

 0.5 ft (15 cm) Erosion Protection Layer (gravel-admixture)

 3.5 ft (107 cm) Water Storage/Biointrusion/Frost Protection/Radon Attenuation Layer
(loam to sandy clay)

 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation Layer (highly compacted loam to sandy clay)

 2.5 ft (75 cm) Radon Attenuation and Grading Layer (loam to sandy clay)

F.2 SETTLEMENT ANALYSIS

F.2.1 Method of Analysis

General. Settlement was estimated for a column representing the maximum depth of tailings in
each of Cells 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Settlement of the tailings was modeled by applying loadings
corresponding to interim cover placement, final cover placement, and tailings dewatering.
Compression index (Cc) and coefficient of consolidation (cv) were estimated using observed
settlement monument data. Current loadings at each monitoring location were used to compare
the consolidation model to actual conditions. Average values of Cc and cv were applied to the
column representing the maximum depth of tailings in each cell in order to estimate maximum
future settlement due to additional loadings.

Current Settlement Monitoring. Twenty settlement monuments were installed in Cell 2 and
six monuments were installed in the east portion of Cell 3. Monuments were installed shortly
after the interim cover was placed over the tailings. Depth of tailings at each monument location
was estimated by comparing the base of the cells (D’Appolonia 1981, D’Appolonia 1982,
Geosyntec 2006, Geosyntec 2007) with the estimated top surface of tailings. The top surface of
tailings is assumed to be 18 inches below the top of berm, or at the top of the flexible membrane
liner (FML). The depth of existing interim cover is estimated to be the difference between the
top of tailings and the ground surface as estimated from the LiDar survey taken in 2007.

Observed settlement is assumed to be due to loading from interim cover placement. Additional
loading of tailings in Cell 2 is due to approximately 7.5 feet of dewatering (from maximum
allowable fluid elevation of 5610.5 ft to approximately 5602 ft) from operation of the slimes drain.
Dewatering began in January 2009, and is ongoing.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
F-2 September 2011
Settlement is estimated using consolidation theory, and observed settlement is assumed to be
due to primary consolidation (i.e. creep and initial compression are neglected). Settlement is
calculated using the following equation:

Sൌେిୌ
ଵାୣబ log ୮బା∆୮
୮బ (Eq. 1)

Where
Cc = compression index,
H = depth of tailings (ft),
e0 = initial void ratio of tailings,
p0 = initial average effective overburden pressure (psf), and
Δp = increase in effective vertical pressure (psf).

In addition, the percent of total settlement at time t can be estimated using the following
equation:

ܷ% ൌ
ቀସ்ೡ గൗቁబ.ఱ
൤ଵାቀସ்ೡ గൗቁమ.ఴ൨
బ.భళవ (Eq. 2)

Where
U = percent of total settlement at time t, and
Tv = time factor.

ܶ௩ ൌ ௖ೡ௧
ு೏ೝమ (Eq. 3)

Where
cv= coefficient of consolidation (ft2/d),
t = time (d), and
Hdr = length of drainage path (ft).

1-D Column Geometry. A one-dimensional (1-D) column was used to analyze the settlement
representing the maximum thickness of tailings in each cell. The stress state for each column is
modeled at the midpoint of the tailings. In general, cover construction consists of 2.5 ft of
interim cover and 6.5 ft of final cover. Table F.1 summarizes the current loading on each
column, along with estimated future loading.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
F-3 September 2011
Table F.1 Summary of Geometry for 1-D Column Representing
Maximum Tailings Depth
Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4A/4B
Initial Conditions
Thickness of Tailings (ft) 32.5 38.5 40.5
Depth of Existing Interim Cover (ft) 2.3 --- ---
Depth of Water (ft) 21.0 35.5 37.5
Loading Conditions
Depth of Additional Interim Cover (ft) --- 2.5 2.5
Depth of Final Cover (ft) 7.7 6.5 6.5
Depth of Water (ft) 0 0 0

F.2.2. Material Properties

In 1977, four tailings samples taken from the ore feed to leach were tested for grain size
distribution. Results were presented in Attachment E of Revision 4.0 of the Reclamation Plan
(Denison, 2009). The 1977 samples were taken as representative of the existing tailings in
Cells 2 and 3. Test results indicated the percent finer than the No. 200 sieve ranged between
23 and 38 percent, with an average of 30 percent. Additional testing was performed on six
tailings samples in 1999 (also included in Attachment E of Denison, 2009). Grain-size
distribution tests indicated the percent finer than no. 200 sieve ranged between 23 and 83
percent, with an average of 43 percent. Specific gravity tests results indicated an average
apparent specific gravity of 2.73. The dry density of the tailings is assumed to be 86.3 pcf, as
was estimated in Attachment E (Denison, 2009) based on stage-capacity curves and known
tailings tonnage placed in Cell 2. An initial void ratio of 0.97 and a saturated density of 117.1
pcf were calculated based on a dry tailing density of 86.3 pcf, and a specific gravity of 2.73.

This settlement analysis relies heavily on observed settlement data from the 26 settlement
monuments installed in Cells 2 and 3. Cc and cv were estimated by estimating the existing
loadings on the tailings, calculating the resulting settlement at several time steps (using
Equations 1-3), and varying Cc and cv until the observed settlement curve correlated well with
the calculated settlement. Interim cover loading is assumed to have occurred rapidly at the date
of the first settlement monitoring reading.

Dewatering of Cell 2 began in January 2009. For simplicity, dewatering is modeled as occurring
instantaneously on this date. Because of this, the modeled data show settlement due to
dewatering occurring quicker than would be expected. Therefore, curve fitting to determine Cc
and cv relies heavier on the portion of the curve prior to January 2009 (before dewatering) than
the latter portion of the curve. Scatter in the observed settlement readings (i.e. sharp peaks and
valleys) were ignored. Figure F-1 presents an example of the measured and modeled
settlement at one settlement monitoring point in Cell 2. Graphs showing actual and modeled
settlement in Cells 2 and 3 are shown in Attachment F.1. Table F.2 summarizes the Cc and cv
fitting parameters.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
F-4 September 2011
Table F.2 Compression Index and Coefficient of Consolidation of Tailings
Cc cv (cm2/s)
Minimum value 0.03 0.0009
Maximum value 0.57 0.0120
Average value 0.16 0.0025

Table F.3 shows typical Cc and cv parameters as given in the literature for hydraulically- placed
uranium tailings.

Table F.3. Literature Values for Compression Index and Coefficient of
Consolidation (Keshian and Rager, 1988).
Cc cv (cm2/s)
Range of values for slimes 0.18 - 0.87 0.00025 - 0.01
Range of values for sand/slimes 0.06 - 0.66 0.001 - 0.05
Range of values for sands 0.015 - 0.29 0.002 - 0.20

Comparison of Table F.2 and F.3 shows the minimum and maximum values of Cc and cv are
within the range of typical values of sands to slime tailings. Average values are typical of
published values for sand/slimes. This correlates to well to the laboratory gradation results,
which indicate average fines content of 30 to 43 percent, which corresponds to the Kesian and
Rager (1988) definition of sand/slimes (fines content between 30 and 70 percent).

F.2.3 Results

Additional settlement of tailings is modeled in two stages: (1) settlement due to interim cover
construction and drawdown of phreatic surface, and (2) settlement due to final cover
construction. In addition, the time required for 90 percent of consolidation to occur is estimated.
The results are summarized in Table F.4. The spreadsheet calculations of are provided in
Attachment F.2.

Table F.4 Estimate of Future Settlement in Cells
Cell 2 Cell 3 Cell 4A/4B
Total Settlement due to Interim Cover Placement and
Dewatering (ft)
Min CcMax CcAve Cc

0.03
0.53
0.14

0.16
3.03
0.83

0.17
3.19
0.87
Total Settlement due to Final Cover
Placement (ft) Min Cc
Max CcAve Cc

0.08
1.54
0.42

0.07
1.37
0.38

0.07
1.39
0.38
Time to Reach 90% Consolidation (yrs)
Min cvMax cvAve cv

7.4
0.6
2.6

10.5
0.8
3.8

11.5
0.8
4.1

Using average consolidation properties, it is estimated that settlement due to dewatering and
placement of interim cover will be approximately 2 inches in Cell 2, and about 10 inches in Cells

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
F-5 September 2011
3, 4A and 4B. The time required to reach 90 percent of settlement is on the order of 3 to 4
years for Cells 3, 4A, and 4B.

After placement of the interim cover, settlement monuments will be installed within Cells 3, 4A,
and 4B. Monuments will be monitored on a regular basis in order to verify that the majority
(90%) of settlement due to dewatering and interim cover has occurred prior to placement of the
final cover. At this time, additional fill may be placed in any low areas in order to maintain
positive drainage of the cover surface. Additional settlement due to the construction of the final
cover is estimated to be on the order of 5 to 6 inches. The estimated amount of additional
settlement is sufficiently low such that ponding is not expected with a cover slope of 0.5 percent.

F.3 LIQUEFACTION ANALYSIS

F.3.1 Method of Analysis

Procedures to evaluate the potential for liquefaction were used as outlined in Youd et al. (2001).
The factor of safety against liquefaction is given by the following equation:

ܨܵ ൌ
஼ோோళ.ఱ
஼ௌோ ܯܵܨ (Eq. 4)

Where CRR = Cyclic Resistance Ratio,
CSR = Cyclic Stress Ratio, and
MSF = Magnitude Scaling Factor.

CRR7.5 for clean sands is related to Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts normalized
for overburden pressure by the following equation:

ܥܴܴ7.5 ൌ ଵ
34െሺܰ1ሻ60ܿݏ ൅ ሺܰ1ሻ60ܿݏ
ଵଷହ ൅ ହ଴
ሾ10ሺܰ1ሻ60ܿݏ൅45ሿ2 െ ଵ
ଶ଴଴ (Eq. 5)

Where (N1)60cs = SPT blow count normalized for an overburden pressure of 100 kPa, and
corrected for the influence of fines content using methods recommended in Youd et al. (2001).

CSR is calculated by:
ܥܴܵ ൌ 0.65ቀ
௔೘ೌೣ
௚ ቁቀఙೡ೚
ఙᇱೡ೚ቁݎௗ (Eq. 6)

Where amax/g = ratio of peak horizontal acceleration at the ground source to the acceleration of
gravity,
vo = total vertical overburden stress,
’vo = effective vertical overburden stress,
rd = stress reduction coefficient varying between approximately 0.5 for depths of 30 ft to
1.0 near the ground surface.

MSF acts as a scaling factor to adjust the CRR value to incorporate earthquakes with
magnitudes other than 7.5 as follows:

ܯܵܨ ൌ
ଵ଴మ.మర
ெೢమ.ఱల (Eq. 7)

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
F-6 September 2011
F.3.2. Material Properties

Lacking site-specific data, MWH assumed that the relative density of the tailings was loose.
Loose sand would exhibit uncorrected (SPT) blow counts between 4 and 10 (Terzaghi, Peck,
and Mesri 1996). For purposes of this analysis, MWH assumed an average uncorrected SPT
value of 4. The liquefaction analysis uses the same assumptions for soil profile, water table
elevation, and density of the tailing material as described above for the settlement analysis. It is
assumed that the compacted cover materials are not susceptible to liquefaction.

F.3.3. Site Seismicity

A site-specific seismic hazard analysis was performed by Tetra Tech (2010). This report
references seismic hazard deaggregation done by the USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps
Program (NSHMP) (USGS, 2008). The NSHMP indicates that the peak ground acceleration
associated with an approximate 10,000 year return period is 0.15 g. The mean seismic source
is from a magnitude (Mw) 5.81 event occurring 51.5 km from the site.

F.3.4 Results

Table F.5 presents a summary of the results of the liquefaction analysis. Further details of the
calculation can be found in Attachment F.3.

Table F.5 Summary of Liquefaction Results
Depth of
Tailings (ft) CSR CRR7.5 MSF Factor of Safety
6 0.13 0.14 1.92 1.93
12 0.16 0.13 1.92 1.53
18 0.17 0.12 1.92 1.38
24 0.18 0.12 1.92 1.30
30 0.17 0.11 1.92 1.26
36 0.17 0.11 1.92 1.26
42 0.16 0.11 1.92 1.29

Based on the factors of safety presented in Table F.5, the tailings are judged not to be
susceptable to earthquake-induced liquefaction based on assumed geotechnical material
properties and site-specific estimations of ground acceleration. The computed factors of safety
against liquefaction range from 1.3 to 1.9, for an earthquake with probability of exceedance of 1
X 10-4.

F.4 REFERENCES

D’Appolonia, 1981. Engineer’s Report, Second Phase Design – Cell 3 Tailings Management
System, White Mesa Uranium Project, May.

D’Appolonia, 1982. Construction Report, Initial Phase – Tailings Management System, White
Mesa Uranium Project, February.

Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill,
Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0, November.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
F-7 September 2011
Geosyntec Consultants, 2006. Cell 4A Lining System Design Report for the White Mesa Mill,
Blanding, Utah, January.

Geosyntec Consultants, 2007. Cell 4B Design Report for the White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah,
December.

Keshian, B., and Rager, R. 1988. Geotechnical Properties of Hydraulically Placed Uranium Mill
Tailings, in Hydraulically Fill Structures, Geotechnical Special Publication No. 21, Eds.
Van Zyl, D., and Vick, S., ASCE, August.

Tetra Tech, 2010. Technical Memorandum re. White Mesa Uranium Facility, Seismic Study
Update for a Proposed Cell, Heather Trantham to Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA)
Corp, February 3.

Terzaghi, K., R. Peck, and G. Mesri, 1996. “Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third
Edition.” John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. 1996.

Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control (DRC), 2011. Denison
Mines (USA) Corporation Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, November 2009;
Supplemental Interrogatories – Round 1A. April.

USGS, 2008. Earthquake Hazards Program: United States National Seismic Hazard Maps
Program (NSHMP). May 2008.

Youd, T., Idriss, I., Andrus, R., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J., Dobry, R., Liam Finn, W.,
Harder, L., Hynes, M., Ishihara, K., Koester, J., Liao, S., Marcuson, W., Martin, G.,
Mitchell, J., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M., Robertson, P., Seed, R., Stokoe, K., 2001.
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF Workshops of Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October.

PROJECT
TIME RATE OF SETTLEMENT CURVE
(MEASURED AND MODELED)
CELL 2 - MONITORING POINT 2W2
TITLE
DATE
FILENAME
FIGURE F-1
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION
AUG 2011
App F Figures.pptx
5619.0
5620.0
5621.0
5622.0
5623.0
Ja
n
‐89
Ja
n
‐90
Ja
n
‐91
Ja
n
‐92
Ja
n
‐93
Ja
n
‐94
Ja
n
‐95
Ja
n
‐96
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
 ( ft
)
Date
Measured Settlement 
(Cell 2 2W2)
Modeled Settlement 
(Cell 2 2W2)
100% Consol After 
Interim Cover 
Placement
100 % Consolidation 
After Final Cover 
Placement
Settlement due to placement of interim cover
Settlement due to 2009-2011 dewatering (instantaneous dewatering assumed)
PROJECT
CALCULATED SETTLEMENT AT THICKEST
TAILINGS LOCATION IN CELL 2
(INTERNAL DIKE SLOPE)
TITLE
DATE
FILENAME
FIGURE F-2
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION
AUG 2011
App F Figures.pptx
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0
1.0
2.0
024681012
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
 (%
)
To
t
a
l
 Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(f
t
)
Years Since Load Placed
Total Settlement After 
Dewatering, Min Cc
Total Settlement After 
Dewatering, Ave Cc
Total Settlement After 
Dewatering, Max Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Min Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement Ave Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Max Cc
Rate of Consolidation, Min Cv
Rate of Consolidation, Ave Cv
Rate of Consolidation, Max Cv
Note: Settlement amounts shown are for individual
loadings, and are not cumulative.
PROJECT
CALCULATED SETTLEMENT AT THICKEST
TAILINGS LOCATION IN CELL 3
(INTERNAL DIKE SLOPE)
TITLE
DATE
FILENAME
FIGURE F-3
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION
AUG 2011
App F Figures.pptx
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
024681012
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
 (%
)
To
t
a
l
 Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(f
t
)
Years Since Load Placed
Total Settlement After Interim 
Cover Placement and Dewatering, 
Min Cc
Total Settlement After Interim 
Cover Placement and Dewatering, 
Avd Cc
Total Settlement After Interim 
Cover Placement and Dewatering, 
Max Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Min Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Ave Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Max Cc
Rate of Consolidation, Min Cv
Rate of Consolidation, Ave Cv
Rate of Consolidation, Max Cv
Note: Settlement amounts shown are for individual
loadings, and are not cumulative.
PROJECT
CALCULATED SETTLEMENT AT THICKEST
TAILINGS LOCATION IN CELLS 4A AND 4B
(INTERNAL DIKE SLOPE)
TITLE
DATE
FILENAME
FIGURE F-4
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION
AUG 2011
App F Figures.pptx
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
024681012
Co
n
s
o
l
i
d
a
t
i
o
n
 (%
)
To
t
a
l
 Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(f
t
)
Years Since Load Placed
Total Settlement After Interim 
Cover Placement and Dewatering, 
Min Cc
Total Settlement After Interim 
Cover Placement and Dewatering, 
Ave Cc
Total Settlement After Interim 
Cover Placement and Dewatering, 
Max Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Min Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Ave Cc
Total Settlement After Final Cover 
Placement, Max Cc
Rate of Consolidation, Min Cv
Rate of Consolidation, Ave Cv
Rate of Consolidation, Max Cv
Note: Settlement amounts shown are for individual
loadings, and are not cumulative.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT F.1
SETTLEMENT MONUMENT DATA

5576.0
5577.0
5578.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
Cell 4A Toe
Cell 4A 
Toe
5574.0
5575.0
Ja
n
‐89
Ja
n
‐90
Ja
n
‐91
Ja
n
‐92
Ja
n
‐93
Ja
n
‐94
Ja
n
‐95
Ja
n
‐96
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
....-.-. J A ~ --1
'"I • ... ,-.. .... -....
EJ
5619.0
5620.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
Cell 2W1
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
C
5618.0
Ja
n
‐89
Ja
n
‐90
Ja
n
‐91
Ja
n
‐92
Ja
n
‐93
Ja
n
‐94
Ja
n
‐95
Ja
n
‐96
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Cover
100 % 
Consol, 
Final 
Cover
5621.0
5622.0
5623.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
Cell 2W2
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
C
5619.0
5620.0
Ja
n
‐89
Ja
n
‐90
Ja
n
‐91
Ja
n
‐92
Ja
n
‐93
Ja
n
‐94
Ja
n
‐95
Ja
n
‐96
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Cover
100 % 
Consol, 
Final 
Cover
5618.0
5619.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
Cell 2W3
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
100%
5616.0
5617.0
Ja
n
‐89
Ja
n
‐90
Ja
n
‐91
Ja
n
‐92
Ja
n
‐93
Ja
n
‐94
Ja
n
‐95
Ja
n
‐96
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
'~ -
Ia I ~ ~ ~~.-. ... f't -.... -.ft..J~ . '\ -
~ -
-
5617.0
5618.0
5619.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
Cell 2W4
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
100%
5615.0
5616.0
Ja
n
‐89
Ja
n
‐90
Ja
n
‐91
Ja
n
‐92
Ja
n
‐93
Ja
n
‐94
Ja
n
‐95
Ja
n
‐96
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
~~ -~·-... -.N I ,-.. .,... -I -·• I\'
\ -
"""" --
5618.0
5619.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W5‐C
Model
100% 
Consol, 
5617.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
~
~~ ~ -~
•• -
-
-
5619.0
5620.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
2W4‐N
5618.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Model
~
~~ .... _. -~.rl
.............
~ -
-
-
5616.0
5617.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W4‐S
2W4‐S
5615.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
EJ
5619.0
5620.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W5‐N
2W5‐N
5618.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
5617.0
5618.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W3‐S
Model
100% 
Cl
5615.0
5616.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
5614.0
5615.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W5‐S
2W5‐S
5613.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
5624.0
5625.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
Cell 2 East
Model
100% 
Consol, 
5623.0
Ja
n
‐89
Ja
n
‐90
Ja
n
‐91
Ja
n
‐92
Ja
n
‐93
Ja
n
‐94
Ja
n
‐95
Ja
n
‐96
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol, Final 
Cover
5627.0
5628.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2E1‐N
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
5626.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
5623.0
5624.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2E1‐1S
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
5622.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Cover
100% 
Consol, Final 
Cover
5619.0
5620.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2E1‐2S
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
5618.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
5622.0
5623.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W7‐C
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
C
5621.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Cover
100% 
Consol, 
Final 
Cover
5621.0
5622.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W7‐N
2W7‐N
5620.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
5620.0
5621.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W7‐S
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim
5619.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
5620.0
5621.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W6‐N
5619.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
5618.0
5619.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W6‐C
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
C
5617.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Cover
100% 
Consol, Final 
Cover
5616.0
5617.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
2W6‐S
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Ii
5615.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
5617.0
5618.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
3‐1N
3‐1N
5616.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
5613.0
5614.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
3‐1C
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
5612.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
5615.0
5616.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
3‐1S
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol,
5614.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
Consol, 
Final Cover
5613.0
5614.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
3‐2N
3‐2N
5612.0
Ja
n
‐97
Ja
n
‐98
Ja
n
‐99
Ja
n
‐00
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
5613.0
5614.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
3‐2C
Model
5612.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover
5612.0
5613.0
El
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
 ft
3‐2S
Model
100% 
Consol, 
Interim 
Cover
100%
5611.0
Ja
n
‐01
Ja
n
‐02
Ja
n
‐03
Ja
n
‐04
Ja
n
‐05
Ja
n
‐06
Ja
n
‐07
Ja
n
‐08
Ja
n
‐09
Ja
n
‐10
Ja
n
‐11
Ja
n
‐12
Ja
n
‐13
Ja
n
‐14
Ja
n
‐15
Ja
n
‐16
Ja
n
‐17
Ja
n
‐18
Ja
n
‐19
Date
100% 
Consol, 
Final Cover

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT F.2
SETTLEMENT CALCULATIONS

Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Mill Reclamation Date: 7/24/2011
Detail: Settlement Analysis of Reclaimed Cells Computed By: RTS
Cell 4A Toe Cell 2W1 Cell 2W2 Cell 2W3 Cell 2W4 2W5-C 2W4-N 2W4-S 2W5-N
Tailings Properties 1 2 3456789
Compression Index, Cc 0.28 0.57 0.27 0.51 0.047 0.047
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (cm^2/s) 0.0012 0.0020 0.0024 0.0024 0.0120 0.0040
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (ft^2/day) 0.00 0.11 0.19 0.22 0.22 1.12 0.37 0.00 0.00
Initial Void Ratio 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
Specific Gravity 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73
Tails Sat Density (pcf) 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1
Tails Moist Density (pcf) 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6
Tails Dry Density (pcf) 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3
Interim Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf) 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7
Final Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf) 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7
Cell 4A Toe Cell 2W1 Cell 2W2 Cell 2W3 Cell 2W4 2W5-C 2W4-N 2W4-S 2W5-N
Base Elevation 5598.5 5596.0 5594.5 5590.0 5585.5 5592.5 5587.0 5589.0
Tailings Elevation 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5
Interim Cover Elevation 5618.1 5617.3 5617.5 5617.5 5617.4 5616.9 5612.8 5618.1
Final Cover Elevation 5623.5 5624.0 5624.5 5624.5 5624.5 5624.0 5623.0 5624.0
Thickness of Tailings (ft)15.0 17.5 19.0 23.5 28.0 21.0 26.5 24.5Thickness of Tailings (ft)15.0 17.5 19.0 23.5 28.0 21.0 26.5 24.5
Thickness of Interim Cover (ft) 4.6 3.8 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.4 -0.7 4.6
Thickness of Final Cover (ft) 5.4 6.7 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.1 10.2 5.9
Midpoint Elevation of Tailings (ft)5606.0 5604.8 5604.0 5601.8 5599.5 5603.0 5600.3 5601.3
Initial Elevation of Phreatic Surface (ft) 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50
Initial Effective Stress (psf) 556.7 625.1 666.1 789.1 912.1 720.8 871.1 816.4
Elevation of Phreatic Surface after Interim
Cover Construction (ft)5610.5 5610.5 5610.5 5610.5 5610.5 5610.5 5610.5 5610.5
Incr. Stress due to Initial Drawdown (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Incr. Stress due to Interim Cover (psf) 463.2 382.6 402.7 402.7 392.7 342.3 -70.5 463.2
Total Settlement due to Interim Cover and
Initial Drawdown (ft)0.56 1.05 0.53 1.09 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00
Incr. Stress due to Final Cover (psf) 613.8 761.5 795.6 795.6 807.0 807.0 1159.3 670.6
Incr. Stress due to Final Drawdown (psf) 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 122.3 0.0 85.6 36.7
Total Settlement due to Final Cover (ft) 0.37 1.02 0.51 1.07 0.13 0.10 0.00 0.00
Date of Interim Cover Placement 6/16/1989 8/22/1991 8/22/1991 8/22/1991 8/26/2005 8/26/2005 8/26/2005 8/3/1999
Date of Time Step 1 10/29/1990 1/3/1993 1/3/1993 1/3/1993 6/22/2006 6/22/2006 1/1/2009 8/3/2003
Date of Time Step 2 3/12/1992 5/18/1994 5/18/1994 5/18/1994 4/18/2007 4/18/2007 1/1/2009 8/3/2007
Date of Time Step 3 7/25/1993 9/30/1995 9/30/1995 9/30/1995 2/12/2008 2/12/2008 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
Date of Time Step 4 12/7/1994 2/11/1997 2/11/1997 2/11/1997 12/8/2008 12/8/2008 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
Date of Time Step 5 5/29/2000 6/26/1998 6/26/1998 6/26/1998 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
Date of Time Step 6 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
Time Step 1: Days since Int Cover Place 500 500 500 500 300 300 1224 1461
Time Step 2: Days since Int Cover Place 1000 1000 1000 1000 600 600 1224 2922
Time Step 3: Days since Int Cover Place 1500 1500 1500 1500 900 900 1224 3439
Time Step 4: Days since Int Cover Place 2000 2000 2000 2000 1200 1200 1224 3439
Time Step 5: Days since Int Cover Place 4000 2500 2500 2500 1224 1224 1224 3439
Time Step 6: Days since Int Cover Place 7139 6342 6342 6342 1224 1224 1224 3439
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 0 0 0000000
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.9 0.5 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.8 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 4 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.8 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 6 3.5 3.9 3.9 2.6 1.7 1.0 0.0 0.0
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 0 (%)0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
DfClItiC TS1(%)56%61%62%51%72%56%0%0%Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (%)56%61%62%51%72%56%0%0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (%)76% 82% 82% 70% 90% 77% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (%)87% 91% 92% 82% 96% 88% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (%)93% 95% 96% 89% 98% 93% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (%)99% 97% 97% 93% 98% 93% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (%)100% 100% 100% 99% 98% 93% 0% 0%
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (ft) 0.31 0.64 0.33 0.55 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (ft) 0.43 0.86 0.44 0.76 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.00
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (ft) 0.49 0.96 0.49 0.89 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (ft) 0.52 1.00 0.51 0.97 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (ft) 0.55 1.02 0.52 1.01 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (ft) 0.56 1.04 0.53 1.08 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00
Elevation of Initial Settlement Mon. read 5619.75 5622.12 5618.35 5618.50 5618.35 5619.26 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1 5619.44 5621.48 5618.02 5617.95 5618.28 5619.21 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2 5619.32 5621.26 5617.91 5617.74 5618.26 5619.20 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3 5619.26 5621.16 5617.86 5617.61 5618.25 5619.19 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 4 5619.23 5621.12 5617.84 5617.53 5618.25 5619.18 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 5 5619.20 5621.10 5617.83 5617.49 5618.25 5619.18 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 6 5619.19 5621.08 5617.82 5617.42 5618.25 5619.18 5616.21 5618.90
Elevation of Phreatic Surface 2009 (ft) 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00
Incr. Stress due to 2009 Drawdown (psf)220.1 281.2 317.9 415.7 415.7 366.8 415.7 415.7
Total Settlement due to 2009 Drawdown (ft) 0.18 0.54 0.29 0.79 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.00
Date of 2009 Drawndow 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
Date of Time Step 1b 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010
Date of Timestep 2b 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011
Date of Timestep 3b 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013
Time Step 1b: Days since 2009 Drawdown 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
Time Step 2b: Days since 2009 Drawdown 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
Time Step 3b: Days since 2009 Drawdown 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
Time Step 1b: Days since Int Cover Place 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639
Time Step 2b: Days since Int Cover Place 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139
Time Step 3b: Days since Int Cover Place 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.8 2.8 1.7 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b 2.0 2.4 2.5 1.6 5.7 3.4 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b 3.0 3.6 3.7 2.4 8.5 5.1 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1b 15.2 18.6 18.9 12.3 43.5 25.8 0.0 0.0,,
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2b 16.1 19.8 20.1 13.2 46.3 27.5 0.0 0.0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3b 17.1 21.0 21.4 14.0 49.2 29.1 0.0 0.0
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b (%)93% 95% 96% 89% 99% 98% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b (%)99% 99% 99% 98% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b (%)99% 100% 100% 99% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1b (%)100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2b (%)100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3b (%)100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0%
Estimated Consol, TS 1b (ft) 0.73 1.56 0.81 1.79 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.00
Estimated Consol, TS 2b (ft) 0.74 1.58 0.82 1.86 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.00
Estimated Consol, TS 3b (ft) 0.74 1.58 0.82 1.87 0.18 0.15 0.00 0.00
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1b 5619.02 5620.56 5617.54 5616.71 5618.17 5619.11 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2b 5619.01 5620.54 5617.53 5616.64 5618.17 5619.11 5616.21 5618.90
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3b 5619.01 5620.54 5617.53 5616.63 5618.17 5619.11 5616.21 5618.90
Plot Date 1 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989
Plot Date 2 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020
100% Consol, Interim Cover 5619.19 5621.07 5617.82 5617.41 5618.25 5619.18 5616.21 5618.90
100% Consol, Final Cover 5618.64 5619.51 5617.01 5615.55 5618.04 5619.01 5616.21 5618.90
Page 1 of 4
Client: Denison Mines
Project: White Mesa Mill Reclamation
Detail: Settlement Analysis of Reclaimed Cells
Tailings Properties
Compression Index, Cc
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (cm^2/s)
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (ft^2/day)
Initial Void Ratio
Specific Gravity
Tails Sat Density (pcf)
Tails Moist Density (pcf)
Tails Dry Density (pcf)
Interim Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf)
Final Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf)
Base Elevation
Tailings Elevation
Interim Cover Elevation
Final Cover Elevation
Thickness of Tailings (ft)
2W3-S 2W5-S Cell 2 East 2E1-N 2E1-1S 2E1-2S 2W7-C 2W7-N 2W7-S
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
0.36 0.18 0.09 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.03
0.0040 0.0009 0.0024 0.0012 0.0020 0.0009 0.0040
0.37 0.00 0.08 0.22 0.11 0.19 0.08 0.00 0.37
0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73
117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1
103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6
86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3
100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7
113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7
2W3-S 2W5-S Cell 2 East 2E1-N 2E1-1S 2E1-2S 2W7-C 2W7-N 2W7-S
5591.5 5583.0 5591.5 5599.0 5591.0 5589.0 5591.5 5593.0 5588.5
5613.5 5613.5 5617.0 5621.4 5614.5 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5 5613.5
5617.4 5611.4 5622.0 5625.9 5620.9 5619.0 5621.6 5621.7 5619.0
5623.5 5623.5 5629.5 5631.0 5628.0 5626.5 5625.5 5627.0 5624.0
22.0 30.5 25.5 22.4 23.5 24.5 22.0 20.5 25.0Thickness of Tailings (ft)
Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)
Thickness of Final Cover (ft)
Midpoint Elevation of Tailings (ft)
Initial Elevation of Phreatic Surface (ft)
Initial Effective Stress (psf)
Elevation of Phreatic Surface after Interim
Cover Construction (ft)
Incr. Stress due to Initial Drawdown (psf)
Incr. Stress due to Interim Cover (psf)
Total Settlement due to Interim Cover and
Initial Drawdown (ft)
Incr. Stress due to Final Cover (psf)
Incr. Stress due to Final Drawdown (psf)
Total Settlement due to Final Cover (ft)
Date of Interim Cover Placement
Date of Time Step 1
Date of Time Step 2
Date of Time Step 3
Date of Time Step 4
Date of Time Step 5
Date of Time Step 6
Time Step 1: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 2: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 3: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 4: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 5: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 6: Days since Int Cover Place
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 4
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 5
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 6
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 0 (%)
DfClItiC TS1(%)
22.0 30.5 25.5 22.4 23.5 24.5 22.0 20.5 25.0
3.9 -2.1 5.0 4.5 6.4 5.5 8.1 8.2 5.5
6.1 12.1 7.5 5.1 7.1 7.5 3.9 5.3 5.0
5602.5 5598.3 5604.3 5610.2 5602.8 5601.3 5602.5 5603.3 5601.0
5610.50 5610.50 5614.00 5618.40 5611.50 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50 5610.50
748.1 980.4 843.8 759.0 789.1 816.4 748.1 707.1 830.1
5610.5 5610.5 5614.0 5618.4 5611.5 5610.5 5610.5 5610.5 5610.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
392.7 -211.4 503.4 453.1 644.4 553.8 815.6 825.6 553.8
0.74 0.00 0.47 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.25 0.00 0.08
693.3 1375.3 852.5 579.7 807.0 852.5 443.3 602.4 568.3
0.0 183.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 36.7 0.0 0.0 48.9
0.65 0.00 0.39 0.14 0.13 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.05
5/4/1999 4/30/2010 6/16/1989 9/3/1998 9/3/1998 9/3/1998 5/4/1999 8/26/2005 8/26/2005
11/20/1999 4/30/2014 6/16/1993 6/30/1999 5/30/2001 11/11/2000 6/7/2000 3/14/2006 4/13/2006
6/7/2000 4/30/2014 6/16/1997 4/25/2000 2/24/2004 1/20/2003 7/12/2001 9/30/2006 11/29/2006
12/24/2000 4/30/2014 6/16/2001 2/19/2001 11/20/2006 3/30/2005 8/16/2002 4/18/2007 7/17/2007
1/28/2002 4/30/2014 6/16/2005 12/16/2001 1/1/2009 6/8/2007 9/20/2003 11/4/2007 3/3/2008
7/21/2007 4/30/2014 1/1/2009 10/12/2002 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 12/2/2008 5/22/2008 10/19/2008
1/1/2010 4/30/2014 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
200 1461 1461 300 1000 800 400 200 230
400 1461 2922 600 2000 1600 800 400 460
600 1461 4383 900 3000 2400 1200 600 690
1000 1461 5844 1200 3773 3200 1600 800 920
3000 1461 7139 1500 3773 3773 3500 1000 1150
3895 1461 7139 3773 3773 3773 3530 1224 1224
000000000
0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
0.3 0.0 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.3
0.5 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.4
0.8 0.0 0.8 0.5 0.8 1.0 0.3 0.0 0.5
2.3 0.0 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.7
3.0 0.0 0.9 1.7 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.7
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
44%0%49%41%51%56%30%0%42%Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (%)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (ft)
Elevation of Initial Settlement Mon. read
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 4
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 5
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 6
Elevation of Phreatic Surface 2009 (ft)
Incr. Stress due to 2009 Drawdown (psf)
Total Settlement due to 2009 Drawdown (ft)
Date of 2009 Drawndow
Date of Time Step 1b
Date of Timestep 2b
Date of Timestep 3b
Time Step 1b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 2b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 3b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 1b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 2b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 3b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1b
44%0%49%41%51%56%30%0%42%
62% 0% 68% 58% 70% 76% 42% 0% 59%
74% 0% 80% 70% 82% 87% 51% 0% 70%
88% 0% 87% 78% 88% 93% 59% 0% 79%
99% 0% 91% 84% 88% 95% 82% 0% 85%
99% 0% 91% 98% 88% 95% 82% 0% 87%
0.32 0.00 0.23 0.09 0.11 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.04
0.45 0.00 0.32 0.12 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.05
0.54 0.00 0.38 0.14 0.18 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.06
0.65 0.00 0.41 0.16 0.19 0.13 0.15 0.00 0.07
0.73 0.00 0.43 0.18 0.19 0.13 0.20 0.00 0.07
0.73 0.00 0.43 0.20 0.19 0.13 0.21 0.00 0.07
5617.40 5614.10 5624.30 5627.60 5623.07 5619.65 5622.44 5621.50 5619.95
5617.08 5614.10 5624.07 5627.51 5622.96 5619.57 5622.37 5621.50 5619.91
5616.95 5614.10 5623.98 5627.48 5622.92 5619.54 5622.34 5621.50 5619.90
5616.86 5614.10 5623.92 5627.46 5622.89 5619.53 5622.31 5621.50 5619.89
5616.75 5614.10 5623.89 5627.44 5622.88 5619.52 5622.29 5621.50 5619.88
5616.67 5614.10 5623.87 5627.42 5622.88 5619.52 5622.24 5621.50 5619.88
5616.67 5614.10 5623.87 5627.40 5622.88 5619.52 5622.23 5621.50 5619.88
5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00 5602.00
391.2 415.7 476.8 401.0 427.9 415.7 391.2 354.5 415.7
0.51 0.00 0.31 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.04
1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010
9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011
2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013
500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
7639 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639 7639
8139 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139 8139
8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639 8639
1.5 0.0 0.3 0.9 0.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.2
3.1 0.0 0.5 1.8 0.8 1.2 0.7 0.0 2.4
4.6 0.0 0.8 2.7 1.2 1.9 1.0 0.0 3.6
23.5 0.0 3.9 13.6 6.2 9.5 5.3 0.0 18.2,,
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2b
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3b
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b (%)
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b (%)
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3b (%)
Estimated Consol, TS 1b (ft)
Estimated Consol, TS 2b (ft)
Estimated Consol, TS 3b (ft)
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1b
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2b
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3b
Plot Date 1
Plot Date 2
100% Consol, Interim Cover
100% Consol, Final Cover
25.0 0.0 4.2 14.5 6.6 10.1 5.6 0.0 19.4
26.6 0.0 4.4 15.4 7.0 10.7 6.0 0.0 20.6
97% 0% 57% 91% 70% 82% 65% 0% 95%
99% 0% 77% 98% 89% 96% 85% 0% 99%
100% 0% 88% 99% 95% 98% 93% 0% 100%
100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100%
100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100%
100% 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 100%
1.23 0.00 0.65 0.32 0.28 0.20 0.30 0.00 0.13
1.24 0.00 0.71 0.33 0.30 0.21 0.31 0.00 0.13
1.25 0.00 0.74 0.33 0.31 0.21 0.32 0.00 0.13
5616.17 5614.10 5623.65 5627.28 5622.79 5619.45 5622.14 5621.50 5619.82
5616.16 5614.10 5623.59 5627.27 5622.77 5619.44 5622.13 5621.50 5619.82
5616.15 5614.10 5623.56 5627.27 5622.76 5619.44 5622.12 5621.50 5619.82
1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989
1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020
5616.66 5614.10 5623.83 5627.39 5622.85 5619.51 5622.19 5621.50 5619.87
5615.50 5614.10 5623.13 5627.13 5622.63 5619.33 5622.04 5621.50 5619.77
Page 2 of 4
Client: Denison Mines
Project: White Mesa Mill Reclamation
Detail: Settlement Analysis of Reclaimed Cells
Tailings Properties
Compression Index, Cc
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (cm^2/s)
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (ft^2/day)
Initial Void Ratio
Specific Gravity
Tails Sat Density (pcf)
Tails Moist Density (pcf)
Tails Dry Density (pcf)
Interim Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf)
Final Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf)
Base Elevation
Tailings Elevation
Interim Cover Elevation
Final Cover Elevation
Thickness of Tailings (ft)
2W6-N 2W6-C 2W6-S 3-1N 3-1C 3-1S 3-2N 3-2C 3-2S
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
0.05 0.09 0.16 0.12 0.04 0.03 0.06
0.0020 0.0040 0.0040 0.0032 0.0016 0.0024 0.0040
0.19 0.37 0.37 0.00 0.30 0.15 0.00 0.22 0.37
0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73
117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1
103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6
86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3
100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7
113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7
2W6-N 2W6-C 2W6-S 3-1N 3-1C 3-1S 3-2N 3-2C 3-2S
5591.0 5586.0 5585.0 5591.0 5590.0 5589.0 5584.0 5583.5 5583.0
5613.5 5613.5 5613.5 5608.5 5608.5 5608.5 5608.5 5608.5 5608.5
5616.4 5616.2 5615.8 5613.6 5612.7 5614.7 5611.9 5612.3 5610.6
5624.5 5625.0 5623.5 5621.0 5619.5 5618.0 5621.0 5619.5 5618.0
22.5 27.5 28.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 24.5 25.0 25.5Thickness of Tailings (ft)
Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)
Thickness of Final Cover (ft)
Midpoint Elevation of Tailings (ft)
Initial Elevation of Phreatic Surface (ft)
Initial Effective Stress (psf)
Elevation of Phreatic Surface after Interim
Cover Construction (ft)
Incr. Stress due to Initial Drawdown (psf)
Incr. Stress due to Interim Cover (psf)
Total Settlement due to Interim Cover and
Initial Drawdown (ft)
Incr. Stress due to Final Cover (psf)
Incr. Stress due to Final Drawdown (psf)
Total Settlement due to Final Cover (ft)
Date of Interim Cover Placement
Date of Time Step 1
Date of Time Step 2
Date of Time Step 3
Date of Time Step 4
Date of Time Step 5
Date of Time Step 6
Time Step 1: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 2: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 3: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 4: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 5: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 6: Days since Int Cover Place
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 4
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 5
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 6
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 0 (%)
DfClItiC TS1(%)
22.5 27.5 28.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 24.5 25.0 25.5
2.9 2.7 2.3 5.1 4.2 6.2 3.4 3.8 2.1
8.1 8.8 7.7 7.4 6.8 3.3 9.1 7.2 7.4
5602.3 5599.8 5599.3 5599.8 5599.3 5598.8 5596.3 5596.0 5595.8
5610.50 5610.50 5610.50 5605.50 5605.50 5605.50 5605.50 5605.50 5605.50
761.8 898.4 925.8 625.1 652.4 679.7 816.4 830.1 843.8
5610.5 5610.5 5610.5 5605.5 5605.5 5605.5 5605.5 5605.5 5605.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
292.0 271.9 231.6 513.5 422.9 624.2 342.3 382.6 211.4
0.08 0.14 0.22 0.00 0.24 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.08
920.7 1000.2 875.2 841.1 772.9 375.1 1034.3 818.4 841.1
0.0 110.0 134.5 0.0
0.12 0.29 0.50 0.00 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.09 0.20
8/26/2005 8/26/2005 8/26/2005 8/3/1999 4/8/1999 8/3/1999 8/3/1999 8/26/2005 8/26/2005
4/13/2006 4/13/2006 4/13/2006 5/29/2000 10/25/1999 12/15/2000 5/29/2000 6/22/2006 6/22/2006
11/29/2006 11/29/2006 11/29/2006 3/25/2001 5/12/2000 4/29/2002 3/25/2001 4/18/2007 4/18/2007
7/17/2007 7/17/2007 7/17/2007 1/19/2002 11/28/2000 9/11/2003 1/19/2002 2/12/2008 2/12/2008
3/3/2008 3/3/2008 3/3/2008 11/15/2002 6/16/2001 1/23/2005 11/15/2002 12/8/2008 12/8/2008
10/19/2008 10/19/2008 10/19/2008 9/11/2003 1/2/2002 6/7/2006 9/11/2003 10/4/2009 10/4/2009
1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009 7/7/2004 3/21/2010 10/20/2007 7/7/2004 11/12/2013 7/31/2010
230 230 230 300 200 500 300 300 300
460 460 460 600 400 1000 600 600 600
690 690 690 900 600 1500 900 900 900
920 920 920 1200 800 2000 1200 1200 1200
1150 1150 1150 1500 1000 2500 1500 1500 1500
1224 1224 1224 1800 4000 3000 1800 3000 1800
00000 0000
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.2
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.3
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.0 0.3 0.5
0.3 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.7 0.8 0.0 0.4 0.7
0.4 0.6 0.5 0.0 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.5 0.9
0.4 0.6 0.6 0.0 3.5 1.2 0.0 1.1 1.0
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
33%38%37%0%47%50%0%37%47%Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (%)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (ft)
Elevation of Initial Settlement Mon. read
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 4
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 5
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 6
Elevation of Phreatic Surface 2009 (ft)
Incr. Stress due to 2009 Drawdown (psf)
Total Settlement due to 2009 Drawdown (ft)
Date of 2009 Drawndow
Date of Time Step 1b
Date of Timestep 2b
Date of Timestep 3b
Time Step 1b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 2b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 3b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 1b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 2b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 3b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1b
33%38%37%0%47%50%0%37%47%
46% 53% 52% 0% 65% 69% 0% 52% 65%
56% 65% 63% 0% 78% 81% 0% 63% 77%
65% 73% 71% 0% 85% 88% 0% 72% 85%
71% 80% 78% 0% 90% 93% 0% 78% 90%
73% 82% 80% 0% 100% 95% 0% 94% 93%
0.03 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.11 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.04
0.04 0.08 0.12 0.00 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.05
0.05 0.09 0.14 0.00 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.04 0.06
0.05 0.11 0.16 0.00 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.06
0.06 0.12 0.17 0.00 0.22 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.07
0.06 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.24 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.07
5620.52 5618.20 5616.60 5617.20 5613.00 5615.23 5613.10 5613.62 5612.18
5620.49 5618.15 5616.52 5617.20 5612.89 5615.17 5613.10 5613.60 5612.14
5620.48 5618.12 5616.48 5617.20 5612.84 5615.15 5613.10 5613.59 5612.13
5620.47 5618.11 5616.46 5617.20 5612.81 5615.14 5613.10 5613.58 5612.12
5620.47 5618.09 5616.44 5617.20 5612.79 5615.13 5613.10 5613.58 5612.12
5620.46 5618.08 5616.43 5617.20 5612.78 5615.13 5613.10 5613.57 5612.11
5620.46 5618.08 5616.42 5617.20 5612.76 5615.12 5613.10 5613.56 5612.11
5602.00 5602.00 5602.00
403.4 415.7 415.7
0.08 0.17 0.31
1/1/2009 1/1/2009 1/1/2009
5/16/2010 5/16/2010 5/16/2010
9/28/2011 9/28/2011 9/28/2011
2/9/2013 2/9/2013 2/9/2013
500 500 500
1000 1000 1000
1500 1500 1500
7639 7639 7639
8139 8139 8139
8639 8639 8639
0.7 1.0 0.9
1.5 2.0 1.8
2.2 3.0 2.7
11.2 15.0 14.0,,
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2b
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3b
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b (%)
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b (%)
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3b (%)
Estimated Consol, TS 1b (ft)
Estimated Consol, TS 2b (ft)
Estimated Consol, TS 3b (ft)
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1b
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2b
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3b
Plot Date 1
Plot Date 2
100% Consol, Interim Cover
100% Consol, Final Cover
12.0 16.0 14.9
12.7 17.0 15.8
87% 93% 91%
97% 99% 98%
99% 99% 99%
100% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100%
100% 100% 100%
0.15 0.30 0.51
0.16 0.31 0.53
0.16 0.31 0.53
5620.37 5617.90 5616.09
5620.36 5617.89 5616.07
5620.36 5617.89 5616.07
1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989 1/1/1989
1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020 1/1/2020
5620.44 5618.06 5616.38 5617.20 5612.76 5615.12 5613.10 5613.56 5612.10
5620.24 5617.60 5615.57 5617.20 5612.49 5615.07 5613.10 5613.47 5611.91
Page 3 of 4
Client: Denison Mines
Project: White Mesa Mill Reclamation
Detail: Settlement Analysis of Reclaimed Cells
Tailings Properties
Compression Index, Cc
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (cm^2/s)
Coeff. Of Consol. Cv (ft^2/day)
Initial Void Ratio
Specific Gravity
Tails Sat Density (pcf)
Tails Moist Density (pcf)
Tails Dry Density (pcf)
Interim Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf)
Final Cover Properties
Moist Density (pcf)
Base Elevation
Tailings Elevation
Interim Cover Elevation
Final Cover Elevation
Thickness of Tailings (ft)
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 2
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 3
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 4A/4B
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 2
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 3
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 4A/4B
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 2
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 3
along
inside
slope
Max
Tailings
Depth in
Cell 4A/4B
along
inside
slope
0.03 0.03 0.03 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.16 0.16 0.16
0.0009 0.0009 0.0009 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0025 0.0025 0.0025
0.08 0.08 0.08 1.12 1.12 1.12 0.23 0.23 0.23
0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97 0.97
2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73 2.73
117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1 117.1
103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6 103.6
86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3 86.3
100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7 100.7
113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7 113.7
n Consol Propertin Consol Propertn Consol Propertax Consol Propertax Consol Propertax Consol Properte Consol Properte Consol Properte Consol Propert
5581.0 5570.0 5558.0 5581.0 5570.0 5558.0 5581.0 5570.0 5558.0
5613.5 5608.5 5598.5 5613.5 5608.5 5598.5 5613.5 5608.5 5598.5
5615.8 5611.0 5601.0 5615.8 5611.0 5601.0 5615.8 5611.0 5601.0
5623.5 5617.5 5607.5 5623.5 5617.5 5607.5 5623.5 5617.5 5607.5
32.5 38.5 40.5 32.5 38.5 40.5 32.5 38.5 40.5
Max Soil Prop Ave Soil PropMin Soil Prop
Thickness of Tailings (ft)
Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)
Thickness of Final Cover (ft)
Midpoint Elevation of Tailings (ft)
Initial Elevation of Phreatic Surface (ft)
Initial Effective Stress (psf)
Elevation of Phreatic Surface after Interim
Cover Construction (ft)
Incr. Stress due to Initial Drawdown (psf)
Incr. Stress due to Interim Cover (psf)
Total Settlement due to Interim Cover and
Initial Drawdown (ft)
Incr. Stress due to Final Cover (psf)
Incr. Stress due to Final Drawdown (psf)
Total Settlement due to Final Cover (ft)
Date of Interim Cover Placement
Date of Time Step 1
Date of Time Step 2
Date of Time Step 3
Date of Time Step 4
Date of Time Step 5
Date of Time Step 6
Time Step 1: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 2: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 3: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 4: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 5: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 6: Days since Int Cover Place
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 0
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 4
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 5
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 6
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 0 (%)
DfClItiC TS1(%)
32.5 38.5 40.5 32.5 38.5 40.5 32.5 38.5 40.5
2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5
7.7 6.5 6.5 7.7 6.5 6.5 7.7 6.5 6.5
5597.3 5589.3 5578.3 5597.3 5589.3 5578.3 5597.3 5589.3 5578.3
5602.00 5605.50 5595.50 5602.00 5605.50 5595.50 5602.00 5605.50 5595.50
1682.3 1199.1 1253.8 1682.3 1199.1 1253.8 1682.3 1199.1 1253.8
5581.0 5570.0 5558.0 5581.0 5570.0 5558.0 5581.0 5570.0 5558.0
232.3 794.6 843.5 232.3 794.6 843.5 232.3 794.6 843.5
0.0 251.7 251.7 0.0 251.7 251.7 0.0 251.7 251.7
0.03 0.16 0.17 0.53 3.03 3.19 0.14 0.83 0.87
875.2 738.8 738.8 875.2 738.8 738.8 875.2 738.8 738.8
0.08 0.07 0.07 1.54 1.37 1.39 0.42 0.38 0.38
000000000
1.2 1.8 1.9 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7
2.5 3.5 3.8 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.9 1.3 1.4
3.7 5.3 5.7 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.3 1.9 2.1
4.9 7.0 7.7 0.4 0.5 0.6 1.8 2.5 2.7
6.2 8.8 9.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.2 3.1 3.4
7.4 10.5 11.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 2.6 3.8 4.1
450 640 700 34 46 51 160 230 250
900 1280 1400 68 92 102 320 460 500
1350 1920 2100 102 138 153 480 690 750
1800 2560 2800 136 184 204 640 920 1000
2250 3200 3500 170 230 255 800 1150 1250
2700 3840 4200 204 276 306 960 1380 1500
000000000
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8
0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
43%43%43%43%42%42%42%43%42%Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (%)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 4 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 5 (ft)
Estimated Consol, Interim Cover, TS 6 (ft)
Elevation of Initial Settlement Mon. read
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 4
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 5
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 6
Elevation of Phreatic Surface 2009 (ft)
Incr. Stress due to 2009 Drawdown (psf)
Total Settlement due to 2009 Drawdown (ft)
Date of 2009 Drawndow
Date of Time Step 1b
Date of Timestep 2b
Date of Timestep 3b
Time Step 1b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 2b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 3b: Days since 2009 Drawdown
Time Step 1b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 2b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time Step 3b: Days since Int Cover Place
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b
Time factor Tv, for 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 1b
43%43%43%43%42%42%42%43%42%
60% 60% 60% 60% 59% 59% 59% 60% 59%
72% 72% 72% 72% 71% 71% 71% 72% 71%
80% 81% 80% 80% 79% 79% 80% 80% 80%
86% 86% 86% 86% 85% 85% 86% 86% 86%
90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 90%
0.01 0.07 0.07 0.23 1.27 1.34 0.06 0.35 0.37
0.02 0.10 0.10 0.32 1.78 1.88 0.09 0.50 0.52
0.02 0.11 0.12 0.38 2.14 2.26 0.10 0.60 0.62
0.02 0.13 0.13 0.42 2.40 2.53 0.12 0.67 0.70
0.02 0.14 0.14 0.46 2.59 2.73 0.12 0.72 0.75
0.03 0.14 0.15 0.48 2.71 2.86 0.13 0.75 0.79
5623.50 5617.50 5607.50 5623.50 5617.50 5607.50 5623.50 5617.50 5607.50
5623.49 5617.43 5607.43 5623.27 5616.23 5606.16 5623.44 5617.15 5607.13
5623.48 5617.40 5607.40 5623.18 5615.72 5605.62 5623.41 5617.00 5606.98
5623.48 5617.39 5607.38 5623.12 5615.36 5605.24 5623.40 5616.90 5606.88
5623.48 5617.37 5607.37 5623.08 5615.10 5604.97 5623.38 5616.83 5606.80
5623.48 5617.36 5607.36 5623.04 5614.91 5604.77 5623.38 5616.78 5606.75
5623.47 5617.36 5607.35 5623.02 5614.79 5604.64 5623.37 5616.75 5606.71
,,
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 2b
Time factor Tv, for Interim Cover, TS 3b
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 1b (%)
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 2b (%)
Deg. of Consol, 2009 Drawdown, TS 3b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 1b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 2b (%)
Deg. of Consol, Interim Cover, TS 3b (%)
Estimated Consol, TS 1b (ft)
Estimated Consol, TS 2b (ft)
Estimated Consol, TS 3b (ft)
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 1b
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 2b
Elev. Of Int Cover Surface, TS 3b
Plot Date 1
Plot Date 2
100% Consol, Interim Cover
100% Consol, Final Cover
000000000
100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5623.47 5617.34 5607.33 5622.97 5614.47 5604.31 5623.36 5616.67 5606.63
5623.39 5617.27 5607.26 5621.44 5613.09 5602.92 5622.93 5616.29 5606.24
Page 4 of 4

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT F.3
LIQUEFACTION CALCULATIONS

Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Mill Reclamation Date: 7/24/2011
Detail: Liquefaction Analysis of Reclaimed Cells Computed By: RTS
Analysis based on Youd, T.L. et al., 2001. Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops of
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Journal of Geothecnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October.
Cyclic Stress Ratio (CSR) z (ft) z (meters)σvo σ'vo rd CSR Nm CN (N1)60 (N1)60CS CRR7.5 MSF FS
peak horizontal acceleration, amax 0 0.00 - - 1.00 #DIV/0! - 0.05 1.92
acceleration of gravity, g 3 0.91 351 164 0.99 0.208 4 1.72 6.9 13.3 0.14 1.92 1.32
amax/g = 0.15 6 1.83 703 328 0.99 0.206 4 1.62 6.5 12.8 0.14 1.92 1.29
total vertical overburden stress, σvo 9 2.74 1,054 492 0.98 0.205 4 1.54 6.1 12.4 0.13 1.92 1.26
effective vertical overburden stress, σ'vo 12 3.66 1,405 656 0.97 0.203 4 1.46 5.8 12.0 0.13 1.92 1.24
3 15 4.57 1,757 821 0.97 0.202 4 1.39 5.5 11.7 0.13 1.92 1.22moist unit weight of tailings (pcf)= 110.5 18 5.49 2,108 985 0.96 0.201 4 1.32 5.3 11.3 0.13 1.92 1.20
saturated unit weight of tailings (pcf)= 117.1 21 6.40 2,459 1,149 0.95 0.199 4 1.26 5.0 11.1 0.12 1.92 1.18
depth of interim cover (ft) 2.5 24 7.32 2,810 1,313 0.95 0.197 4 1.21 4.8 10.8 0.12 1.92 1.17
moist unit weight of interim cover (pcf)=100.7 27 8.23 3,162 1,477 0.93 0.195 4 1.16 4.6 10.6 0.12 1.92 1.16
saturated unit weight of interim cover (pcf)= 30 9.15 3,513 1,641 0.92 0.192 4 1.11 4.5 10.3 0.12 1.92 1.16
depth of final cover (ft) 6.5 33 10.06 3,864 1,805 0.90 0.189 4 1.07 4.3 10.1 0.11 1.92 1.17
moist unit weight of final cover (pcf)=113.7 36 10.98 4,216 1,969 0.88 0.184 4 1.03 4.1 10.0 0.11 1.92 1.18
saturated unit weight of final cover (pcf)= 39 11.89 4,567 2,133 0.86 0.179 4 1.00 4.0 9.8 0.11 1.92 1.19
stress reduction coefficient, rd 42 12.80 4,918 2,297 0.83 0.174 4 0.96 3.9 9.6 0.11 1.92 1.21
depth below top of tailings, z (meters)
Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR)
measured standard penetration resistance (SPT), Nm
factor to normalize Nm to 100 kPa overburden, CN
SPT blow count normalized to 100 kPa overburden pressure, (N1)60
equivalent clean sand blow count, (N1)60CS
fines content in tailings= 35α=5
β=1.2
Earthquake Magnitude, Mw= 5.81
depth from top of tailings to water
surface (ft) =
Page 1 of 1

EROSIO
APP
ONAL STA
PENDIX G

ABILITY
Update
G
EVALUAT
ed Tailings Co
TION
over Design RReport

Denison M

G.1 IN
This app
cover su
sediment
Regulato
The anal

1
2
3
4
5
6

These ta

G.2 C
Erosiona
following

• C
6
co
co
• P
0
w
p
• E
(5
D
u
• A
th
d
ines (USA) Co
NTRODUCT
pendix prese
rface of the
tation basin.
ory Commiss
yses include
. Selection
site.
. Calculatio
4A and 4
channel.
. Evaluatio
surfaces
channel a
. Evaluatio
underlying
embankm
. Evaluatio
slopes to
. Evaluatio
water and
asks are pres
CONCEPTUA
al protection
proposed c
Cells 1, 2, an
inches of t
onditions w
onditions).
Portions of C
.8% slope:
weight) of 1-i
oor or better
External side
5H:1V): Ero
D50 of 7.4 inc
nderlying so
A rock apron
he north, we
eep and 10
orporation
TION
ents the hyd
White Mes
. These ana
sion (NRC)
e the tasks li
of the Prob
on of the pea
4B for the
n of reclaim
and the rec
and sedimen
n of the ne
g soil layer
ment slopes,
n of the ne
accommoda
n of surface
d wind.
sented in the
AL EROSIO
was evaluat
cover surface
nd 3 top surf
topsoil vege
with a mini
Cell 2 with to
Erosional p
inch minus (
r vegetated
e slopes or
osional prote
ches. Filter m
oil layer.
n at the toe
est, and east
feet in widt
drologic ana
a Mill tailing
lyses have b
guidelines
isted below.
bable Maxim
ak discharge
cover surfa
med tailings d
claimed emb
ntation basin
eed for filter
s on the tra
and the roc
eed for a roc
ate flow tran
e sheet eros
e following s
ONAL PROT
ted for the p
e of the tailin
faces graded
etated with a
mum of 30
p surface at
protection is
(D100 = 1 inc
conditions w
internal tra
ection is prov
material will
of 5H:1V slo
t sides of the
th, with a D5
G-1
alysis and e
gs disposal c
been conduc
documented

mum Precipit
e (due to the
ce, and for
disposal cel
bankment s
n for erosiona
r material b
ansition slo
k aprons.
ck apron at
nsitioning fro
sion of top s
sections of th
TECTION DE
roposed mo
ngs disposal
d to 0.5% slo
a grass mix
0 percent
t 1% slope a
provided by
ch) gravel, v
with a minimu
nsition slop
vided by 12
be placed b
opes: Erosi
e cells is pro
50 of 7.4 inc
Update
evaluation o
cells and fo
cted in a ma
d in NRC (
tation (PMP)
e PMP) from
r the draina
l surfaces fo
slopes) and
al stability.
etween ero
pes on the
t the toe of
m embankm
surface of ce
his appendix
ESIGN
onolithic ET c
l cells:
ope: Erosio
xture providi
plant cover
and Cells 4A
y 6 inches of
vegetated wi
um of 30 pe
es graded t
inches of an
between the
ional protec
ovided by a
hes. On the
ed Tailings Co
of erosion p
r the discha
anner consis
(1990) and
) as the des
the surface
age basin fo
or erosional
evaluation
sional prote
top surface
the reclaim
ment slopes t
ells due to a
x.
cover design
onal protectio
ng poor or
rage (repre
A and 4B wit
f topsoil mix
ith a grass m
rcent plant c
to 5 horizon
ngular riprap
erosional p
tion and sco
rock apron
e south side
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
protection fo
arge channe
tent with Nu
Johnson (2
sign event fo
es of Cells 1,
or the disch
stability (th
of the disch
ection riprap
e, the recla
med embank
to native gro
action of su
n based on t
on is provide
better vege
esenting dro
th top surfac
xed with 25%
mixture prov
coverage.
ntal to 1 ve
p with a mini
rotection an
our protectio
measuring 2
e of cells 4A
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
or the
l and
uclear
002).
or the
2, 3,
harge
e top
harge
p and
aimed
kment
ound.
urface
the
ed by
etated
ought
ces at
% (by
viding
ertical
imum
d the
on on
2 feet
A and

Denison M

4
a

G.3 P
As outlin
erosiona
used to
duration
precipitat
“Hydrom
Colorado
(2009).
using pro

G.4 C
The peak
(2002) a
path (se
Conserva
DOE (19
was use
runoff qu

The PMP
discharge

Lo
Upper
Cell 2 a
slope
Middle
Cell 2 a
slope
Lower
Cell 2 a
slope
Cell 3 a
slope
Cell 4A
slope
Cell 4A
slopes
slope
Note: Fl

ines (USA) Co
B, and east
nd has a D5
PROBABLE
ned in NRC
l stability of
calculate th
PMP (with a
tion total o
eteorologica
o River and
Rainfall dep
ocedures in
CALCULATIO
k discharge
nd Nelson e
ee Figure G
ation Servic
989). Equal
d to represe
uantities and
P discharge
es represen
cation
reach of
at 0.5 %
reach of
at 1 %
reach of
at 0.5 %
at 0.5 %
A at 0.8 %
A side
at 20%
low accumulate
orporation
side of Cell
0 of 15 inche
MAXIMUM
(1990) and
the reclaime
he peak disc
a precipitatio
of 8.3 inche
al Report (H
Great Bas
pth versus d
HMR 49 and
ON OF PEA
calculations
et al. (1986)
G.1) across
e (SCS) and
weight was
ent PMP co
peak flow v
results acro
t flow across
Table G.1
Slope
Length
(feet)
350
600
550
830
1200
210
es as it flows fr
l 4A, the roc
es.
PRECIPITA
Johnson (2
ed tailings d
charges for
on total of 1
es). These
HMR) No.
sin Drainage
uration for s
d NUREG/C
AK DISCHAR
s were made
. The time
the tailings
d Brant and
given to ea
onditions (DO
velocities.
oss the tailin
s a unit-widt
1. Peak Rec
Time of
Concentrat
(min)
7.0
14.4
23.4
35.0
47.0
34.2
rom Cell 2 to C
G-2
ck apron me
ATION EVEN
2002), the d
disposal cells
evaluation
0.0 inches)
events wer
49: Proba
es (Hansen
short-term e
CR-4620 (Ne
RGE
e using the R
of concentra
s disposal c
Oberman a
ach of the th
OE, 1989).
gs disposal
th across the
claimed Sur
f
tion
Rai
Inte
(in
38
25
18
13
10
13
Cell 4A
Update
easures 3.75
NT
design event
s is the PMP
of erosiona
and the one
re determine
able Maximu
et al. 1984
vents (less
lson et al., 1
Rational Met
ation was ca
cells using
as presented
ree methods
These ch
cells are pre
e slope.
rface Disch
infall
ensity
n/hr) C
8.1
5.3
8.0
3.1
0.2
3.3
ed Tailings Co
5 ft in depth,
t for evalua
P. The selec
al stability w
e-hour dura
ed for the
um Precipit
4) as prese
than 1 hour
1986).
hod as desc
alculated for
procedures
d in Nelson
s. A runoff
haracteristic
esented in T
arges
Runoff
oefficient
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
19 feet in w
tion of long-
cted PMP ev
were the six
tion PMP (w
site area u
tation Estim
ented in Den
r) was devel
cribed in Joh
r the longest
by Kirpich,
et al. (1986
coefficient o
cs represent
Table G.1. T
Peak Unit
Discharge
(cfs/ft)
0.31
0.55
0.62
0.70
0.83
0.86
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
width,
-term
vents
-hour
with a
using
mates,
nison
loped
hnson
t flow
Soil
) and
of 1.0
high
These
t
e

Denison M

The unit
the recla
evaluatio

G.5 E
The surfa
the meth

Temple
design.
and inclu
surface s
the PMP
runoff on

The eros
calculatin
safety va
cover ve
over the
resistanc
discharge
concentr

AlIowab
in Templ
site stoc
indicates
(diamete
.004 in) w
less than
soils with

Where
τa D

For area
topsoil m

As discus
grasses
The allow

Where
ines (USA) Co
discharge v
aimed surfa
ons are prese
EROSIONAL
ace of the r
ods recomm
Method.
These proc
ude method
soils. The ev
P (summariz
n the cover s
sional stabil
ng a factor o
alues were c
getation or
cover). Two
ce of the v
e flow for th
ration factor
le stresses
e and others
kpiled topso
s the topsoil
er of which 7
with a plastic
n 10 is estim
h a D75 great
a = allowable
D75 = particle
as where 1-i
mixture will in
ssed in App
(primarily w
wable vegeta
orporation
values in Ta
aces and s
ented in Sec
L STABILITY
reclaimed ta
mended in N
Temple and
cedures are
ds for estim
valuation for
zed in Table
surface. The
ity of the c
of safety ag
calculated as
soils) to the
o factors of
vegetation, a
e tailings dis
of 3 to acco
. Allowable
s (1987). M
oil. Laborat
classifies a
75% of the m
city index (P
mated to be a
ter than 0.05
߬௔ ൌ
߬௔ ൌ0.02
e shear stren
diameter in
inch gravel
ncrease to ap
endix J of th
heatgrass, r
ation shear s
able G.1 abo
size erosio
ctions G.5 a
Y OF VEGET
ailings dispo
RC (1990) a
d others (1
recommend
ating stress
r the tailings
e G.1) to co
stresses on
cover surfac
gainst erosio
s the ratio of
effective st
safety were
and the res
sposal cells
unt for chan
stresses for
aterial plann
ory testing o
as either a s
material is fin
I) of approxi
approximate
5 in., the res
ൌ 0.4ܦ଻ହ , fo
2, for noncoh
ngth (psf), a
which 75 pe
is added to
pproximately
his report, th
ricegrass, sq
strength is c
߬௩
G-3
ove were us
n protectio
nd G.6.
TATED SLO
sal cells wa
and Johnson
987) outline
ded in Johns
ses on chan
disposal ce
onservatively
n both the ve
ce for the ta
on due to th
f the allowab
tresses (the
e calculated
sistance of
(from Table
nnelization of
r the cover s
ned for the u
of the topso
silty clay wi
ner) is appro
imately 4 to
ely 0.02 psf
istance is ca
or soils with
hesive soils
nd
ercent of the
o the topsoil
y 0.2 inches
e cover will
quirreltail, an
calculated as
௔ ൌ0.75ܥூ
Update
sed to evalu
n materials
OPES
as evaluated
n (2002).
es procedu
son (2002) f
nnel vegetat
ells used the
y represent
egetation and
ailings dispo
e peak runo
ble stresses
stresses im
d for each a
the silty to
e G.1) was c
f flow.
soils were ca
upper layer o
oil conducted
th sand or
oximately 0.0
7. The resis
(Temple et
alculated as
D75>0.05 in,
with D75≤0.0
e soil is finer
(25 percen
.
be vegetate
nd fescue) a
s:
ed Tailings Co
uate the eros
s where ne
d for erosion
res for gras
for areas of
tion as well
e peak disch
the effectiv
d the soil we
osal cells w
off from the
(the resistin
mpacted by t
nalysis to e
opsoil layer.
conservative
alculated usi
of the cover s
d in 2010 (s
a sandy silt
08 mm to 0.
stance of a s
al., 1987).
follows:

05 in.
(inch).
nt by weight
ed with a mix
and forbs (ya
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
sional stabil
ecessary. T
nal stability u
ss-lined cha
vegetated c
as the cha
arge values
ve stresses
ere evaluate
was evaluate
PMP. Facto
ng strength o
the runoff flo
evaluate bot
. The peak
ly multiplied
ing the equa
system is th
see Append
ty clay. The
.1 mm (.003
silty soil with
For noncoh
t), the D75 o
xture of pere
arrow and s
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
lity of
These
using
annel
cover
annel
from
from
d.
ed by
or-of-
of the
owing
h the
k unit
by a
ations
e on-
dix A)
e D75
3 in to
h a PI
esive
of the
ennial
age).

Denison M

τvC
h
M

Conserva
vegetatio

Effective
calculate

Where
τeγ
d
S
C
n
0
n

The effec

Where
τv

Conserva
vegetatio

ines (USA) Co
va = allowabl
CI =cover ind
= stem leng
M = stem den
atively using
on shear stre
e stresses.
ed as:
e = effective
= unit weigh
= depth of f
S = slope of c
Cf = cover fac
s = soil roug
.05 in), and
= Manning's
ctive shear s
v = effective
atively using
on on the tai
orporation
le vegetation
ex = 2.5 [h(M
gth (ft), and
nsity factor (
g poor veg
ength value
The effect
shear stress
ht of water =
flow (ft), from
cover surfac
ctor (0.375 fo
ghness facto
s roughness
݊ ൌ
stress on veg
vegetal stre
g poor veg
lings cover s

n shear stren
M)1/2]1/3,
stems per s
getation con
is 3.78 psf.
ive shear st
߬௘ ൌߛ݀ܵ
s (psf),
62.4 pcf,
m Table G-2
ce (ft/ft), from
or poor vege
or (0.0156 fo
s coefficient
ൌ ݁஼೔൫଴.଴ଵଷଷሾ୪୬
getation is c
߬௩
ess (psf).
getation con
surfaces are
G-4
ngth (in psf)
quare ft).
nditions, h=1
tress on soi
ܵ൫1 െ ܥ௙൯ሺ݊௦
,
m Table G-1,
etation),
or soils with
for vegetate
୬௤ሿమି଴.଴ଽହସ୪୬௤
calculated as
ൌߛ݀ܵെ߬௘
nditions, the
e summarize
Update
,
1.0, M=67,
l due to pea
௦/݊ሻଶ
,
D75≤0.05 in
ed surface.
௤ା଴.ଶଽ଻൯ିସ.ଵ଺
s:
e effective s
ed in Table G
ed Tailings Co
and CI=5.0
ak runoff fro
n., or 0.0256
shear stress
G.2.
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
03, the resu
om the PMP
6(D75)1/6 for
ses on soil
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
ulting
P was
D75 >
and

Denison M

Location
Cell 2 at
0.5 %
slope
Cell 2 at
1 % slope
Cell 3 at
0.5 %
slope
Cells 4A
and 4B at
0.8 %
slope
1 Calculate

The calc
shear str
during pe
factor of
but rema

These an
construct
without t
Cells 4A

G.6 E
Because
designed
value fro
method r
calculate

Where
D
S
q

Flow Ch
flow cond
4A and 4

ines (USA) Co
Tab
n
Descript
of
Erosio
Protect
Vegetat
(D75 = 0.
in)
e
Vegetat
and gra
(D75 = 0.2
Vegetat
(D75 = 0.
in)
t Vegetat
and gra
(D75 = 0.2
ed using a co
culated facto
rengths are
eak discharg
safety impr
ains well abo
nalyses indi
ted as a ve
he addition
and 4B will
EROSIONAL
e of the diffic
d for erosion
m Table G.1
referenced i
ed as follows
D50 = particle
S = slope (ft/f
= unit disch
haracteristic
ditions acros
4B. Concent
orporation
le G.2. Effe
tion
on
ion
Dept
of
Flow
(ft)
tion
003 0.96
tion
avel
2 in)
0.76
tion
003 1.01
tion
avel
2 in)
0.96
oncentration fa
ors of safety
higher than
ge from the
roves signifi
ove 1.0. Fur
cate that the
egetated slo
of gravel, w
require the a
L STABILITY
ulty in maint
al protection
1 was used t
n Johnson (
s:
diameter in
ft), and
harge (cfs/ft)
cs. The pea
ss the cover
tration factor
ective Shea
h
w1
Effective
Shear
Stress
(psf)
6 0.016
6 0.035
0.019
6 0.050
actor of 3 for
y above show
the effective
PMP. Whe
cantly, while
ther details o
e cover on t
ope. Top s
while the 1 p
addition of a
Y OF ROCK
taining vege
n assuming v
to size riprap
(2002) was
ܦହ଴ ൌ
which 75 pe
.
ak unit disch
r surface an
rs of 3 were
G-5
r Stresses o
Soil
e Allowable
Shear
Stress
(psf)
0.02
0.08
0.02
0.08
peak unit dis
w that for p
e shear stre
en vegetatio
e the vegeta
of calculatio
the top surfa
lopes at 0.5
percent slope
approximatel
K-PROTECT
etation on sid
vegetation is
p for the em
used for the
5.23ܵ଴.ସଷݍ଴
ercent of the
harge values
d down the
used to acc
Update
on Soil and
e Factor
of
Safety
1.2
2.3
1.1
1.6
charge
oor vegetati
sses on bot
n conditions
ation factor
ons can be fo
ace of the t
5 percent sl
e in Cell 2, a
ly 25% of 1-
ED SIDE-SL
de slopes, th
s minimal. T
bankment s
e side slope
.ହ଺
e soil is finer
s from Table
embankme
count for cha
ed Tailings Co
d Vegetation
V
Effective
Shear
Stress
(psf)
0.284
0.439
0.296
0.439
ion condition
h the vegeta
s are good o
of safety de
ound in Attac
ailings dispo
lopes are a
and the 0.8
inch-minus g
LOPES
he 5:1 side s
The maximu
lopes. The
s. The requ
r (inch),
e G.1 were u
nt side slope
annelization
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
n
Vegetation
Allowable
Shear
Stress
(psf)
3.78
3.78
3.78
3.78
ns, the allow
ation and the
or better, the
ecreases slig
chment G.1.
osal cells ca
dequately s
percent slo
gravel.
slopes have
um unit disch
Johnson an
uired rock s
used to repre
es south of
of flow.
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
Factor
of
Safety
13.3
8.6
12.8
8.6
wable
e soil
e soil
ghtly,
.
an be
stable
ope in
been
harge
d Abt
ize is
esent
Cells

Denison M

Rock Ch
the riprap
the desig
the riprap

Side Slo

Filter Re
placed u
prevent e
than 0.5
velocities

Interstitia
following

Where
V
G
D
S

The max
protectio
band wid
sizes acc
maximum
the side s

Based on
that a filte

Gradatio
gradation
satisfy fil
details tw
can be fo
supportin

ines (USA) Co
haracteristic
p material w
gn to accoun
p sizing for t
Location
pes
equirements
under the er
erosion of th
ft/s, and ar
s are betwee
al velocities
equation:
Vi = interstitia
G = accelerat
D10 = stone d
S = gradient i
ximum D10 o
n, assuming
dth of 5. Ba
ceptable for
m of 6 in ord
slopes.
Tab
n the results
er be placed
on for prop
n limits for a
ter requirem
welve steps
ound in Cha
ng calculatio
orporation
cs. A specifi
was assume
nt for rounde
the embankm
Tab
n
s. NUREG-
rosion protec
he underlyin
re recomme
en 0.5 and 1
are calculate
al velocities
tion due to g
iameter at w
in decimal fo
of the erosio
g the erosion
and width re
any given p
der to preve
ble G.4. Res
Minimum D
Maximum D
Slope (%)
Interstitial V
s in Table G
d between th
posed Filte
a sand or gr
ments betwe
to determin
apter 26 of t
ons. Table G

ic gravity of
ed to be rou
ed rock char
ment slopes
ble G.3. Re
Desig
Discharg
0.
-1623 (John
ction if inter
g soils. Be
nded depen
.0 ft/s.
ed by proce
ܸ௜ ൌ0.23
(ft/s),
gravity (ft/s2)
which 10 per
orm.
n protection
n protection
fers to the r
ercent finer
ent gap-grad
sults of Filt
Location
50 (inches)
D10 (inches)
Velocity (ft/s)
.4 and the fi
he soil and th
er. The p
ravel filter w
en the soil a
ne an approp
the USDA H
.5 presents
G-6
2.65 was as
nded, theref
racteristics (
are summa
sults of Rip
gn Unit
ge (cfs/ft)
86
son, 2002) r
rstitial veloc
dding is not
nding on the
dures prese
3ሺ݃ൈܦଵ଴ ൈ
),
cent is finer
n is estimate
will have a
ratio of the m
designation
ing of filters
ter Requirem
ne-grained n
he rock prote
procedure fr
was used to
and rock pro
priate grada
Handbook an
the recomm
Update
ssumed for t
fore rock siz
(Abt and Joh
rized in Tab
prap Sizing
Slope
(ft/ft)
Co
0.20
recommend
ities are gre
t required if
e characteris
ented by Abt
ܵሻ଴.ହ
(inches), an
ed based on
coefficient o
minimum an
. USDA (19
s. Table G.4
ments for S
Side Slo
7.4
2.3
20
0.88
nature of the
ection.
rom USDA
evaluate the
otection for t
ation range f
nd are show
mended grad
ed Tailings Co
the riprap. T
ze was incre
hnson, 1991
ble G.3 below

oncentration
Factor
3
s a filter or
eater than 1
interstitial ve
stics of the
t et al. (1991
nd
the D50 req
of uniformity
nd maximum
994) recomm
4 summarize
Side Slopes
pes
e top soil, it
(1994) for
e type of ma
the side slop
for the filter
wn in the Att
ation.
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
The rock use
eased by 40
). The resu
w.
Median R
Size (inch
7.4
bedding laye
1 ft/s, in ord
elocities are
underlying s
1) as given i
quired for ero
y (CU) of 6 a
m allowed pa
mends CU to
es the resul

is recomme
determining
aterial need
pes. The me
layer. The s
tachment G
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
ed for
0% in
ults of
Rock
hes)
er be
der to
e less
soil if
n the
osion
and a
article
o be a
ts for
ended
g the
ed to
ethod
steps
.1 for

Denison M

Based o
placed be

Sheet E
NUREG/
sheet flow

The MUS

Where:
A
R
K
L
V

The rainf
erodibility
mixture,

The topo

Where:
s
L
m

The topo
From the
than or e

The eros
seedlings
MUSLE
weight.

ines (USA) Co
T
n the result
etween the e
Erosion. T
/CR4620 (N
ws across th
SLE is define
A = soil loss,
R = rainfall fa
K = soil erodi
S = topogra
VW = dimens
fall factor, R
y factor, K, w
based on th
ographic fact
= slope stee
= slope leng
m = slope ste
ographic fact
e Table 5.2 in
equal to 1.0%
sion factor,
s of 0 to 60
results for t
orporation
Table G.5.
Diam
(m
76
4
0
0.0
ts of Table
erosion prot
The Modifie
elson et al.,
he gravel/top
ed as:
in tons per a
actor,
bility factor,
phic factor, a
sionless eros
R, is 30, as g
was estimat
e nomograp
tor, LS, is ca
ܮܵ
epness, in p
gth in feet,
eepness dep
tor was calc
n NUREG/C
%.
VW, used
0 days, to m
the propose

Results of F
meter
mm)
Si
Si
6.2 3
.75 No
.85 No
075 No
G.5, the filt
ection and t
ed Universa
, 1986) was
psoil surface
ܣൌܴ
acre per yea
and
sion factor re
given in NUR
ted to be 0.2
ph (Fig. 5.1)
alculated bas
ܵ ൌ 650 ൅ 45
10,0
percent (%),
pendent expo
culated using
CR-4620, the
was 0.4, f
mimic light v
d topsoil an
G-7
Filter Grada
eve
zes
3"
o. 4
o. 20
. 200
ter material
he random f
al Soil Loss
s used to ev
e layer of the
ܴ כܭכܮܵכ
ar,
elating to ve
REG/CR-462
28 for the to
in NUREG/C
sed on the fo
50ݏ ൅ 65ݏ
ଶ
00 ൅ ݏ
ଶ כ
onent
g a slope of
e slope steep
from Table
egetation on
nd the propo
Update
ation Requi
Percent
Passing
100
70-100
35-70
5-15
should be
fill base laye
s Equation
valuate the
e cover.
ܸܹ
egetative and
20 for the ea
opsoil and 0.
CR-4620.
ollowing equ
כ ൬ ܮ
72.6൰
௠

0.82% and
pness expon
5.3 of NUR
n the cover.
osed topsoil
ed Tailings Co
rements
a medium s
er on the side
(MUSLE) a
potential for
d mechanica
astern third o
16 for the g
uation:
a slope leng
nent, m, is 0
REG/CR-462
. Table G.5
l mixed with
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
sand that w
e slopes.
as presente
r soil loss d
al factors
of Utah. The
gravel and to
gth of 1,300
.2 for slopes
20, to repre
summarize
h 25% grave
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
will be
ed in
ue to
e soil
opsoil
feet.
s less
esent
s the
el, by

Denison M

Rainfall
Silt and
Sand (%
Organic
Soil stru
Relative
Erodibili
Topogra
Erosion
Soil loss
Soil loss

The soil
using 25
cover is l

G.7 R
Additiona
reclaimed
perimete
(2) provid
median r
Abt et al.

Flow Ch
flow con
factors o

Rock Ch
increased

Based on
the east
should be
a minimu
toes of th
construct
natural g

Filter Re
determin
Table G.

ines (USA) Co
Soil C
factor, R
very fine san
%)
c matter (%)
ucture
e permeability
ity factor, K
aphic Factor,
factor, VM –
s (tons/acre/y
s (inches/1,00
loss equatio
% gravel in
less than the
ROCK SIZIN
al erosion p
d surfaces o
er apron will:
de erosion p
rock size req
. (1998) as o
haracteristic
ditions down
f 3 were use
haracteristic
d by 40% to
n the above
toe of Cell
e a minimum
um of 3 time
he north and
ted by exten
round, at a m
equirements
ed if a bedd
7 below.
orporation
Cover
nd (%)
y
LS
low density s
year)
00 years)
on shows th
the topsoil m
e minimum d
G FOR APR
protection w
of Cells 4A
: (1) serve a
protection, a
quired in the
outlined in N
ܦହ଴
cs. The pea
n the emba
ed to accoun
cs. A specif
account for
equation, th
4A should h
m of 15 times
es the medi
d west side
nding the 7.4
minimum roc
s. NUREG-
ding layer w

Table G.6.
seedings
he potential
mixture. The
design thickn
RON
will be provi
and 4B and
as an impac
and (3) trans
e perimeter a
UREG 1623
଴ ௘௡௘௥௚௬ ௗ௜௦௦௜௣
ak unit disch
nkment side
nt for channe
fic gravity of
r rounded roc
he rock apro
have a med
s the median
ian rock size
slopes and
4-in D50 rock
ck depth of 2
-1623 (John
was required
G-8
Results of
Proposed
30
46.
40.
1.5
Fine gra
Mode
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.6
3.5
for erosion
e topsoil los
ness of 6 inc
ded for run
d the east s
t basin and
sition flow fr
apron was ca
3 (Johnson,
௣௔௧௜௢௡ ൌ10.4
harge values
e slopes sou
elization of fl
f 2.65 was a
ck character
on along the
ian rock siz
n rock size (
e (3.75 ft).
east side s
k used on th
2 feet.
son, 2002),
d for the roc
Update
MUSLE
Topsoil
0
0
0
5
anular
rate
8
9
4
4
5
will be redu
ss of 1.8 to 3
ches.
noff from th
side of Cell
provide for
rom side slo
alculated us
2002) as fol
46ܵ଴.ସଷݍ଴.ହ଺
s from Table
uth of Cells
low.
assumed fo
ristics per Ab
south toe of
e of 15 inch
(19 ft) and th
For the rem
lope of Cells
e side slope
as detailed
ck aprons. T
ed Tailings Co
Propose
25%
Medium or
Mode
uced by alm
3.5 inches ov
e south sid
4A with a r
energy diss
opes to natu
sing the equa
lows:
e G.1 were u
4A and 4B
r the riprap.
bt and Johns
f Cells 4A an
hes. The w
he apron thic
maining tran
s 2 and 3) t
es a minimum
in section G
The results
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
ed Topsoil wi
% Gravel
30
34.5
30.0
1.5
r coarse gran
erate to rapid
0.16
0.19
0.4
0.36
1.8
most one ha
ver the life o
de slopes o
rock apron.
sipation of ru
ural ground.
ations derive
used to repre
B. Concentr
. Rock size
son (1991).
nd 4B, and a
idth of the a
ckness shou
nsition areas
the apron ca
m of 10 feet
G.6, was us
are present
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
ith
nular
alf, by
of the
of the
The
unoff,
The
ed by
esent
ration
e was

along
apron
uld be
s (the
an be
t over
ed to
ted in

Denison M

Based on
and rock

G.8 D
The PMP
channel
calculatio
for the lo
procedur
condition
velocities

The PMP
Table G
calculatio

Lo
Mill
sedim
b

The pea
through t
Drawing
n-value
presume
velocities

Locati
Discha
chann
Discha
chann

Based on
consist o
ines (USA) Co
Tab
Minimum
Maximum
Slope (%)
Interstitial
n the results
protection f
DISCHARGE
P event des
to be locat
ons were ma
ongest flow p
res describe
ns (DOE, 19
s.
P peak disch
.8. This dis
ons can be f
Tab
cation
site and
mentation
basin
k discharge
the discharg
REC-3 and
was estima
ed roughnes
s for Mannin
T
on
Chan
Botto
Wid
(fee
rge
nel 150
rge
nel 150
n the availa
of a fine to
orporation
le G.7. Res
Location
D50 (inches)
m D10 (inches)
)
Velocity (ft/s
s in Table G
for the rock a
E CHANNEL
scribed in s
ted at the
ade using th
path (see Fig
ed in section
989). These
harge calcula
charge repr
found in Atta
ble G.8. Pea
Slope
Length
(feet)
4,600
value in Ta
ge channel e
include a 15
ated and ad
ss, along th
g’s n-values
Table G.9.
nnel
om
dth
et)
Chann
Side
Slope
(H:V
0 3:1
0 3:1
ble bedrock
o medium-g
sults of Filte
)
G.7, it is not
aprons.
L AND SEDI
ection G.3
west end o
e Rational M
gure G.1) ac
n G.4. A ru
e characteris
ated across
resents the
achment G.1
ak Discharg
Time of
Concentrat
(min)
26.3
able G.8 ab
excavated in
50-foot botto
djusted bas
he channel,
s of 0.02 and
Peak Disch
nel
e
es
V)
Mann
Coeffic
n
0.02
0.0
k information
grained sand
G-9
er Requirem
North-Wes
7.4
2.3
1
0.2
required to
MENTATIO
was used t
of the sedim
Method and
cross the mi
unoff coeffic
stics represe
the mill site
peak flow i

ge Flow to t
f
tion
Rai
Inte
(in
16
ove, was us
nto bedrock.
om width an
sed on the
after excav
d 0.03.
harge Chan
ning
cient,
Flo
Dep
(ft
2 1.6
3 2.1
n near the c
dstone with
Update
ments for Ro
st Apron S
4
3
20
place a bed
ON BASIN
o determine
mentation b
the time of c
ll site and se
ient of 1.0 w
ent high run
and sedime
into the cha
he Discharg
infall
ensity
n/hr) C
6.4
sed to evalu
The chann
nd 3:1 (H:V)
anticipated
vation. Tab
nel Flow Ve
w
pth
)
Cros
Sectio
Area
Flow (
67 259
2 332
channel loca
h varying de
ed Tailings Co
ock Aprons
South-East A
15
4.7
1
0.28
dding layer
e the peak
basin. The
concentratio
edimentation
was used to
noff quantitie
entation basi
annel. Furth
ge Channel
Runoff
oefficient
1.0
uate the pea
nel dimensio
side slopes
d type of b
ble G.9 inc
elocities
ss
onal
of
(ft2)
Hydra
Rad
(ft
9 1.6
2 2.0
ation, the roc
egrees of c
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
s
Apron
between the
discharge to
peak disch
on was calcu
n basin usin
o represent
es and peak
in is present
er details o

Peak
Discharge
(cfs)
2,440
ak flow velo
ns are show
. The Mann
bedrock and
cludes peak
aulic
ius
t)
Pea
Velo
(fp
61 9.
03 7.
ck is expect
cementation
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
e soil
o the
harge
ulated
ng the
PMP
k flow
ted in
of the
e
cities
wn on
ning’s
d the
flow
ak
ocity
ps)
4
3
ed to
and

Denison M

weatheri
refraction
(D’Appol
selected,
increasin
permissib
rock” (US

G.9 R
Abt, S.,
E

Abt, S.,
E

Dames a
W

D’Appalo
Ju

Denison
R
D
D

Hansen,
P
H
D
D

Johnson
R

MWH, In
W

Nelson,
E
N

Temple,
L

U.S. Arm
1

U.S. Dep
N
ines (USA) Co
ng, or a clay
n surveys in
onia, 1979)
, for a chan
ng irregularit
ble peak ch
SACE, 1994
REFERENCE
Ruff, J., and
Engineering,
and Johnso
Engineering,
and Moore, 1
White Mesa U
onia, 1979. T
une.
Mines (USA
Response to
Design – Exh
Dane Finerfro
E. M., Sc
Probable Max
Hydrometeor
Department
Department o
, T.L., 2002
Regulatory C
nc. (MWH),
White Mesa M
J., S. Abt, R
Evaluation of
NUREG/CR-4
D.M., K.M.
ined Open C
my Corps of
601. p.2-16.
partment of
National Eng
orporation
ystone (Dam
dicate the b
). Because
nnel in rock
ies in the fin
hannel veloc
).
ES
d Wittler, R.
Vol. 117, N
on, T. 1991
Vol. 117, No
1978. Site S
Uranium Pro
Tailings Man
A) Corporatio
DRC Requ
hibit C: Prob
ock, Septem
hwarz, F.K.
ximum Prec
rological Bra
of Commer
of the Army,
. "Design of
Commission (
2010. Rev
Mill Site, Bla
R. Volpe, D
f Long-term
4620, U.S. N
Robinson, R
Channels." U
Engineers,
. June.
Agriculture
ineering Han
mes and Moo
bedrock will
of this vari
k and then
nal excavated
cities are 10
, 1991. Est
No. 5, May.
. Riprap D
o. 8, August
election and
oject. Januar
nagement Sy
on (Denison
est for Addi
bable Maxim
mber 11.
., Riedel, J
ipitation Est
anch Office
rce, Nationa
Corps of En
f Erosion Pr
(NRC), NUR
vised Infiltra
anding, Utah
D. van Zyl, N
Stabilization
Nuclear Reg
R.A. Ahring
USDA Handb
1994. Hydra
(USDA), 19
ndbook, Par
G-10
ore, 1978).
range from
ability, an i
modification
d rock surfa
0 feet per s
timating Flo
Design for O
.
d Design Stu
ry 17.
ystem, White
), 2009. “Re
itional Inform
um Precipita
.T., 1984.
imates, Colo
e of Hydrol
al Oceanic
ngineers, Sil
rotection for
REG-1623. S
ation and Co
, prepared fo
N. Hinkle, a
n Designs o
ulatory Com
, and A.G. D
book 667.
aulic Design
994. Gradat
rt 633, Chap
Update
The shear w
rippable to
initial Mann
ns of 0.005
ce. (USBR,
econd for c
w Through
Overtopping
udy - Tailing
e Mesa Uran
e: Cell 4B L
mation – Ro
ation (PMP)
“Hydromet
orado River
logy, Nation
and Atmos
ver Springs,
r Long-Term
September.
ontaminant
or Dension M
nd W. Stau
of Uranium M
mmission, Ju
Davis, 1987
of Flood Co
tion Design
ter 26, Octo
ed Tailings Co
wave velocit
hard rock, r
ing’s n-valu
and 0.015
1987). Max
channels ex
Riprap, Jou
Flow, Jour
Retention a
nium Projec
ining System
ound 3 Interr
Event Calcu
teorological
and Great B
nal Weathe
sphere Adm
, MD.
m Stabilizatio
Transport M
Mines, Marc
b, 1986. "M
Mill Tailings
ne.
7. "Stability D
ontrol Chann
of Sand an
ober.
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
ties from se
requiring bla
ue of 0.015
were adde
ximum sugge
cavated in
rnal of Hydr
rnal of Hydr
and Mill Facil
ct, Blanding
m Design Re
rogatory, Ce
ulation”, Let
Report No
Basin Draina
er Service,
ministration,
on." U.S. Nu
Modeling Re
ch.
Methodologie
Impoundme
Design of G
nels, EM 11
nd Gravel Fi
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
ismic
asting
was
ed for
ested
“poor
raulic
raulic
lities
Utah.
eport,
ell 4B
ter to
. 49:
ages,”
U.S.
U.S.
uclear
eport,
es for
ents."
Grass-
10-2-
ilters,

Denison M

U.S. Dep
D
N

U.S. Dep
3

U.S. Nuc
E

ines (USA) Co
partment of E
DOE/AL 050
New Mexico.
partment of rd Edition. p.
clear Regula
Erosion Prote
orporation
Energy (DO
0425.0002, U
the Interior,
595.
atory Comm
ective Cover
E), 1989. T
Uranium Mi
Bureau of R
mission (NRC
rs for Stabiliz
G-11
Technical Ap
ill Tailings R
Reclamation
C), 1990. "F
zation of Ura
Update
pproach Doc
Remedial A
n (USBR), 1
Final Staff T
anium Mill Ta
ed Tailings Co
cument, Rev
Action Projec
987. Design
echnical Po
ailings Sites
over Design R
MWH America
Septembe
vision II, UMT
ct, Albuque
n of Small D
osition, Desig
s," August.
Report
as, Inc.
r 2011
TRA-
rque,
Dams.
gn of
CELL 3
CELL 4A
CELL 2
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5 %
1 .0 %
1.
0
%
CELL 1
EXISTING SURFACE FROM
2007 LIDAR SURVEY (TYP)
0.82%
0.82%
ROCK APRON A: D = 7.4 INCHES
MINIMUM WIDTH = 10 FT
MINIMUM DEPTH = 2 FT
ROCK APRON B: D = 15 INCHES
MINIMUM WIDTH = 19 FT
MINIMUM DEPTH = 3.75 FT
50
50
0.5% SLOPES: TOPSOIL
AND VEGETATION
0.8-1.0% SLOPES: TOPSOIL MIXED
WITH 25% 1-INCH MINUS GRAVEL
0.8-1.0% SLOPES: TOPSOIL
MIXED WITH 25% D = 1"
0.5% SLOPES: TOPSOIL
AND VEGETATION
FLOW PATH ALONG LONGEST
5H:1V SIDE SLOPE IN CELL 4A
LONGEST FLOW PATH
ACROSS CELLS 2, 3 AND 4A
5H:1V SLOPES: D = 7.4
INCHES WITH FILTER
LAYER BETWEEN EROSION
PROTECTION AND SOIL
50
MILL SITE0.1%
SLOPES: TOPSOIL
AND VEGETATION
DISCHARGE CHANNEL
50
CELL 4B
LONGEST FLOW PATH ACROSS MILL
SITE AND SEDIMENTATION BASIN
BEDROCK
1009740 EROS F
FIGURE G.1
LEGEND:
WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION
Denison Mines (USA) Corp SEP 2011RECLAMATION COVER EROSION PROTECTION

S
ATTA
SUPPORTIN
ACHMENT G

NG CALCUL
Update
G.1
LATIONS
ed Tailings Coover Design RReport
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:5/31/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
PMP Event
PMP calculation from "Re: Cell 4B Lining System Design Report, Response to DRC Request fo Additional
Information - Round 3 Interrogatory, Cell 4B design", September 11,2009.
Procedure: Hydrometeorological Report No. 49: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado river and Great Basin Drainages
(Hansen et al., 1984), corrected for elevation and area.
Table 1. Estimated Precipitation Depths For Local-Storm PMP, White Mesa Mill, Utah Site
Hourly Increments
First
Hour Second Hour
Fourth
Hour
Fifth
Hour
Sixth
Hour
PMP Depths (inches)
0.1 0.4 0.8 0.2 0.1
Third-Hour
Component Depths
(inches)6.1 1.3 0.5 0.4
Third Hour
8.3
Depth‐Duration 
G:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:PMP
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0 102030405060
Pr
e
c
i
p
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
 (i
n
c
h
e
s
)
Duration (min)
Depth‐Duration 
G:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:PMP
Attachment G.1
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
Time of Concentration
1-hour PMP (in)8.3
Flow Path 1: flow path across longest 5H:1V side slope in Cell 4A
Kirpich SCS
Brant and
Oberman Average
Cell 2 at 0.5% 0.005 530 7.5 7.5 11.5 8.9 60.1 4.99 33.8
Cell 3 top 0.005 870 18.5 18.5 25.2 20.7 81.9 6.80 19.7
Cell 4A top 0.0082 1200 30.2 30.2 38.0 32.8 91.0 7.55 13.8
Cell 4A side slope 0.2 210 31.0 31.1 40.5 34.2 91.7 7.6 13.3
Note: Flow accumulates as it flows from Cell 2 to Cell 4A. Design flow path is longest path across maximum 5H:1V side slope
Flow Path 2: longest flow path across cells with .82% top slope across cells 4A and 4B
Kirpich SCS
Brant and
Oberman Average
Cell 2 at 0.5% 0.005 350 5.5 5.5 10.1 7.0 53.4 4.44 38.1
Cell 2 at 1% 0.01 600 11.8 11.8 19.6 14.4 73.2 6.07 25.3
Cell 2 at 0.5% 0.005 550 19.5 19.5 31.3 23.4 84.6 7.02 18.0
Cell 3 top 0.005 830 30.1 30.2 44.7 35.0 92.1 7.64 13.1
Cell 4A top 0.0082 1200 41.8 41.8 57.6 47.0 96.5 8.01 10.2
Cell 4A side slope 0.2 100 42.3 42.3 59.5 48.0 96.8 8.0 10.0
Note: Flow accumulates as it flows from Cell 2 to Cell 4A. Design flow path is longest path across Cell 2, 3, and 4A,
and not the longest flow path across each individual cell
Source: Brant and Oberman(1975) as presented in UMTRA TAD (1989)
Formula: tc=C(L/Si^2)^(1/3).
Source:Kirpich (1940) as presented in NUREG 4620
PDPMP (in)
PDPMP (in)
Slope
(feet/feet)
Intensity
(in/hr)
Intensity
(in/hr)Description
Slope
(feet/feet)
Slope
Length
(feet)
Time of Concentration (minutes)
% of 1-hour
PMP
Description
Slope
Length
(feet)
Time of Concentration (minutes)
% of 1-hour
PMP
G:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:Time of concentration
Source:Kirpich (1940) as presented in NUREG 4620
Formula: tc=0.00013*L^0.77/S^0.385 with L in feet, tc in hours
Source: SCS as presented in NUREG 4620
Formula: tc=(11.9L^3/H)^0.385 with L in miles, H in feet, t in hours
% of one-hour PMP=RD/(0.0089*RD+0.0686) for tc<15 min based on Table 4.1 of TAD
Cell geometry based on Figure A-5.1-1 Reclamation Plan Reve 3.2, March, 2010
G:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:Time of concentration
Attachment G.1
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
Unit discharge of PMP
Flow Path 1: flow path across longest 5H:1V side slope in Cell 4A
Cell 2 at 0.5%530 1 8.9 33.8 0.41
Cell 3 top 1400 1 20.7 19.7 0.63
Cell 4A top 2600 1 32.8 13.8 0.82
Cell 4A side
slope
2810
1 34.2 13.3 0.86
Note: Flow accumulates as it flows from Cell 2 to Cell 4A
Flow Path 2: longest flow path across cells with 0.8% top slope across cells 4A and 4B
Cell 2 at 0.5%350 1 7.0 38.1 0.31
Cell 2 at 1%950 1 14.4 25.3 0.55
Cell 2 at 0.5% 1500 1 23.4 18.0 0.62
Cell 3 top 2330 1 35.0 13.1 0.70
Cell 4A top 3530 1 47.0 10.2 0.83
Cell 4A side
slope
3630
1 47.0 10.2 0.85
Note: Flow accumulates as it flows from Cell 2 to Cell 4A
Description
Total Drainage
Length (ft) C Tc (min)
Intensity
(in/hr)
unit
discharge
(cfs/ft)
Description
Total Drainage
Length (ft) C Tc (min)
Intensity
(in/hr)
unit
discharge
(cfs/ft)
G:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:Flow-PMP
Attachment G.1
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
Abt and Johnson method (Abt and Johnson, 1991) applicable for slopes of 50% or less.
Equations assume specific gravity of rock is 2.65 or greater and angular rock.
For rounded rock, increase size by 40%.
ROCK SIZING EQUATION d50 = 5.23*S^0.43q*^0.56
Flow Path 1: flow path across longest 5H:1V side slope in Cell 4A
Area Cell 4A side slope
Side Slope (ft/ft) 0.2
angle α (rad)0.197
PMP unit flow (cfs/ft)0.86
Concentration Factor 3
Coef. Of Movement 1.35
design flow (cfs/ft)3.49
design flow over rock (cfs/ft)3.49
D50 (inches) angular 5.27
D50 (inches) rounded 7.38
G:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:CSU-Abt
Attachment G.1
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
Temple Method for Vegetated Slopes - Top Soil
Reference: Temple, D.M., Robinson, K.M., Ahring, R.M., and Davis, A.G., 1987. Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels, USDA Handbook 667.
And as presented in UMTRA TAD Section 4.3.3 and NUREG 1623, Appendix A
Area Cell 2 at 0.5%Cell 3 topp
PMP Design flow (cfs/ft)0.62 0.70
Concentration Factor, F 3 3
PMP Design flow (cfs/ft), q 1.86 2.10
Slope, S (ft/ft)0.005 0.005
average dry density (pcf)100 100 (assumed value)
average specific gravity 2.65 2.65 (assumed value)
void ratio, e 0.654 0.654
unit weight water (pcf)62.4 62.4
TilDii LCl LClTopsoil Description Lean Clay Lean Clay
Plasticity Index, PI <10 <10 (from 2005 RP)
base allowable tractive shear stress (psf) τab=na na
void ratio correction factor, Ce=na na
allowable tractive shear stress (psf), τa=0.020 0.020
Long-term, PMP precip
Repr. stem length (ft) h(ave)
good veg 2 2 pg 36 and 39 of Temple et al. (1987)
poor veg 1 1
Repr stem density (stems/sq ft) M(ave)Repr. stem density (stems/sq ft), M(ave)
good veg 200 200 Temple Table 3.1, grass mixture
poor veg 67 67
Retardance curve index, Ci
good veg 7.62 7.62
poor veg 5.03 5.03
Cover factor, Cf
good veg 0.75 0.75 Temple Table 3.1, grass mixture
poor veg 0.375 0.375 assume min 30% coverage
allowable vegetated shear strength (psf), τva
good veg 5.71 5.71
poor veg 3.78 3.78
Mi f il h 001 6 001 6Mannings n for soil roughness, ns=0.0156 0.0156
Mannings n for vegetal conditions, nr
good veg 0.0995 0.0924
poor veg 0.0531 0.0506
Mannings n for vegetated slopes, nv
good veg 0.0995 0.0924
poor veg 0.0531 0.0506
assumed depth of flow, d (ft)
good veg 1.402 1.446
poor veg 0.962 1.007
calculated q (cfs/ft), with veg
good veg 1.86 2.10good veg 1.86 2.10
poor veg 1.86 2.10
qcalc - qdesign
good veg 0.00 0.00
poor veg 0.00 0.00
Iterate with d until q calc equals q design
velocity (ft/s), v
good veg 1.32 1.45
poor veg 1.93 2.09
ff ti h t ( f)effective shear stress (psf), τe
good veg 0.0027 0.0032
poor veg 0.0162 0.0187
effective veg shear stress (psf) τve
good veg 0.4348 0.4480
poor veg 0.2839 0.2955
shear stress ratio, vegetated slope
good veg 13.1 12.8
poor veg 13.3 12.8
shear stress ratio, soil on vegetated slopeshear stress ratio, soil on vegetated slope
good veg 7.4 6.2
poor veg 1.2 1.1
Attachment G.1
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
Temple Method for Vegetated Slopes - Top Soil Ammended with 25% Gravel
Reference: Temple, D.M., Robinson, K.M., Ahring, R.M., and Davis, A.G., 1987. Stability Design of Grass-Lined Open Channels, USDA Handbook 667.
And as presented in UMTRA TAD Section 4.3.3 and NUREG 1623, Appendix A
Area Cell 2 at 1%Cell 4A topp
PMP Design flow (cfs/ft)0.55 0.86
Concentration Factor, F 3 3
PMP Design flow (cfs/ft), q 1.66 2.58
Slope, S (ft/ft)0.01 0.0082
average dry density (pcf)100 100 (assumed value)
average specific gravity 2.65 2.65 (assumed value)
void ratio, e 0.654 0.654
unit weight water (pcf)62.4 62.4
TilDii
Topsoil with 25% 1"-minus
l
Topsoil with 25% 1"-
ilTopsoil Description gravel minus gravel
d75 (inches)0.2 0.2
from preliminary
gradation specs
base allowable tractive shear stress (psf) τab=na na
void ratio correction factor, Ce=na na
allowable tractive shear stress (psf), τa=0.080 0.080
Long-term, PMP precip
Repr. stem length (ft) h(ave)
good veg 2 2 pg 36 and 39 of Temple et al. (1987)
poor veg 1 1poor veg 1 1
Repr. stem density (stems/sq ft), M(ave)
good veg 200 200 Temple Table 3.1, grass mixture
poor veg 67 67
Retardance curve index, Ci
good veg 7.62 7.62
poor veg 5.03 5.03
Cover factor, Cf
good veg 0.75 0.75 Temple Table 3.1, grass mixture
poor veg 0.375 0.375 assume min 30% coverage
allowable vegetated shear strength (psf), τva
good veg 5.71 5.71
38 38poor veg 3.78 3.78
Mannings n for soil roughness, ns=0.0196 0.0196
Mannings n for vegetal conditions, nr
good veg 0.1067 0.0824
poor veg 0.0556 0.0469
Mannings n for vegetated slopes, nv
good veg 0.1073 0.0833
poor veg 0.0568 0.0484
assumed depth of flow, d (ft)
good veg 1.114 1.325
poor veg 0.760 0.956
calculated q (cfs/ft), with vegcalculated q (cfs/ft), with veg
good veg 1.66 2.58
poor veg 1.66 2.58
qcalc - qdesign
good veg 0.00 0.00
poor veg 0.00 0.00
Iterate with d until q calc equals q design
velocity (ft/s), v
good veg 1.49 1.95
poor veg 2.18 2.70
effective shear stress (psf), τe
good veg 0.0058 0.0094
poor veg 0.0352 0.0501
effective veg shear stress (psf) τve
good veg 0.6891 0.6687
poor veg 0.4393 0.4392
shear stress ratio, vegetated slope
good veg 8.3 8.5
poor veg 8.6 8.6
shear stress ratio, soil on vegetated slope
good veg 13.8 8.5
poor veg 2.3 1.6
Attachment G.1
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
Preliminary Gradations
This spreadsheet calculates preliminary gradations of riprap based on D50
Source: NUREG 4620
Source: USDA, National Engineering Handbook, Part 633, Chapter 26, Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters, October 1994.
Comment
Minimum D50 (in) 7.38
Assuming angular rock, Safety factor method for top
slope, Abt and Johnson (1991) method for side slopes
Rock thickness (in) 14.75
Based on constructability: 2*D50. May consider 12" as
minimum thickness for rock
Maximum D50 (in) 9.84 Based on constructability: Thickness/1.5
Maximum D50 (in) 36.88 Prevent gap-grading: minimum D50*5
Maximum D50 (in)9.84 Smaller of two above criteria
Maximum D100 (in) 14.75 Based on constructability: 1*Thickness
Maximum D100 (in) 49.18 Based on internal stability?: 5*maximum D50
Maximum D100 (in)14.75 Smaller of two above criteria
Minimum D100 (in)14.75 Based on internal stability: 2*minimum D50
Minimum D15 (in)0.92 Based on internal stability: Maximum D100/16
Maximum D15 (in)4.61 Prevent gap-grading: Minimum D15*5
Minimum D60 (in)10.33 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6
Maximum D60 (in)13.77 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6
Minimum D10 (in)1.72 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6
Maximum D10 (in)2.30 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6
Area
Description
Cell 4A
side slope
Attachment G.1
Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2011
Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:RTS
Interstitial Velocities
Source: NUREG 1623, Section D
Abt, SR, JF Ruff, RJ Wittler (1991). Estimating Flow Through Riprap, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, May.
Area
Description
Minimum D50 (inches) 7.38
from Safety Factor Method, or Abt/Johnson
Method, assuming angular rock
Minimum D10 (inches) 1.72 from preliminary gradation specs
Maximum D10 (inches) 2.30 from preliminary gradation specs
Slope (ft/ft)0.2 from preliminary disposal cell layout
Min Velocity (ft/s)0.77
calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on Min
D10
Max Velocity (ft/s)0.88
calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on Max
D10
Underlying filter
required?maybe Per NUREG 1623, Appendix D, section 2.1.1
Cell 4A
side slope
G:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:Interstitial VelocityG:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4.xlsx:Interstitial Velocity
Attachment G.1
Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date: 9/13/2011
Detail: Erosion Protection Computed By: TMS
Checked By: MMD
Interstitial Velocities
Source: NUREG 1623, Section D
Abt, SR, JF Ruff, RJ Wittler (1991). Estimating Flow Through Riprap, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, May.
Area Cell 4A Cell 4A
Description
North-Western
Rock Apron
South-Eastern
Rock Apron
Minimum D50 (inches) 7.40 15.00
from Safety Factor Method, or Abt/Johnson
Method, assuming angular rock
Minimum D10 (inches) 1.73 3.50 from preliminary gradation specs
Maximum D10 (inches) 2.30 4.67 from preliminary gradation specs
Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.01 from preliminary design
Min Velocity (ft/s) 0.17 0.24
calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on Min
D10
Max Velocity (ft/s) 0.20 0.28
calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on
Max D10
Underlying filter
required?no no Per NUREG 1623, Appendix D, section 2.1.1
L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4(9-21-11).xlsx:Interstitial VelocityTS
Attachment G.1
L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\riprap4(9-21-11).xlsx:Interstitial VelocityTS
Attachment G.1
Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date: 9/21/2011Detail: Erosion Protection Computed By: TMS
Checked By: MMD
USDA Filter Gradation Calulations
Step 1: Plot Gradation Curve of Base Soil
Stockpile ID
Description
Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter Diameter
E4 (Field ID 2) E5 (Field ID 3)W2 (Field ID 13)
Sandy Clay Random Fill Clay Random Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill
Sandy Clay Random
Fill
Sandy Clay Random
Fill
Sandy Clay Random
Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill
E6 (Field ID 4) E7 (Field ID 5) E8 (Field ID 6) W9 (Field ID 7) W7 (Field ID 8) W1 (Field ID 12)
Sandy Clay Random
Fill
Sandy Clay Random
Fill
L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\Filter Transtion Design_NRCS(9-21-11).xlsx
Sieve Sizes Diameter
(mm)% Finer Diameter
(mm)% Finer Diameter (mm) % Finer Diameter (mm) % Finer
Diameter
(mm)% Finer Diameter
(mm)% Finer Diameter
(mm)% Finer Diameter (mm) % Finer
Diameter
(mm)% Finer
1 1/2" 38.1 100 38.1 100 38.1 100 38.1 100 38.1 100 38.1 100 38.1 100 38.1 100 38.1 100
1" 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 100
3/4" 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 100
3/8" 9.8 100 9.8 100 9.8 100 9.8 100 9.8 100 9.8 100 9.8 100 9.8 100 9.8 100
Nº 4 4.75 99.9 4.75 100 4.75 99.9 4.75 100 4.75 100 4.75 100 4.75 100 4.75 100 4.75 99.8
Nº 10 2 99.8 2 99.9 2 99.9 2 100 2 100 2 100 2 99.3 2 100 2 99.7
Nº 20 0.85 98.9 0.85 99.2 0.85 99.2 0.85 100 0.85 99 0.85 99.3 0.85 98.8 0.85 99.5 0.85 97.4
Nº 40 0.425 97.7 0.425 97.9 0.425 96.9 0.425 99.7 0.425 97.4 0.425 98.3 0.425 98.1 0.425 98.8 0.425 94.7
Nº 60 0.25 95.1 0.25 93.1 0.25 92.6 0.25 98.8 0.25 91.9 0.25 96.1 0.25 94.4 0.25 97.8 0.25 88.2
Nº 100 015 90 8 015 80 9 015 88 8 015 96 7 015 74 7 015 92 3 015 79 4 015 95 2 015 76 6Nº 100 0.15 90.8 0.15 80.9 0.15 88.8 0.15 96.7 0.15 74.7 0.15 92.3 0.15 79.4 0.15 95.2 0.15 76.6
Nº 200 0.075 58.8 0.075 64.5 0.075 82.2 0.075 69.8 0.075 53 0.075 62.6 0.075 56.2 0.075 59.4 0.075 58.3
D15 estimated as 0.025
All Steps below are from USDA Ch. 26 Example 26-2A
Step 4. Base Soil
Category 2 2 2 2222 22
Step 5. Filtering
Criteria (Max D15) Criteria (Max D15)
(mm)0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Step 6. Min D15 0.076531 0.0698 0.054745 0.06447 0.084906 0.071885 0.080071 0.075758 0.077187
Step 7. Ratio 9.146667 10.0333 12.78667 10.85778 8.244444 9.737778 8.742222 9.24 9.068889
Control Point 1
(D15max)0.382653 0.3488 0.273723 0.32235 0.424528 0.359425 0.400356 0.378788 0.385935
Control Point 2
(D15min)0.076531 0.0698 0.054745 0.06447 0.084906 0.071885 0.080071 0.075758 0.077187
Step 8. MaxD10 0.318878 0.2907 0.228102 0.268625 0.353774 0.299521 0.33363 0.315657 0.321612
CP3 Max D60 1.913265 1.7442 1.368613 1.611748 2.122642 1.797125 2.001779 1.893939 1.929674
CP4 Min D60 0.382653 0.3488 0.273723 0.32235 0.424528 0.359425 0.400356 0.378788 0.385935
Step 9 CP5 D5min 0 075 0 075 0 075 0 075 0 075 0 075 0 075 0 075 0 075Step 9. CP5 D5min 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075 0.075
CP6 D100 max 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75
Step 10. CP7 D10 0.063776 0.0581 0.04562 0.053725 0.070755 0.059904 0.066726 0.063131 0.064322
CP8 D90 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Step 11. Connecting Control Points
CP D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer D(mm) % Finer
4 0.382653 60 0.348837 60 0.273722628 60 0.32234957 60 0.424528 60 0.359425 60 0.400356 60 0.378787879 60 0.385935 60
2 0.076531 15 0.069767 15 0.054744526 15 0.064469914 15 0.084906 15 0.071885 15 0.080071 15 0.075757576 15 0.077187 15
5 0.075 5 0.075 5 0.075 5 0.075 5 0.075 5 0.075 5 0.075 5 0.075 5 0.075 56100100100100100100100100100
W7 (Field ID 8) W1 (Field ID 12) W2 (Field ID 13)E4 (Field ID 2) E5 (Field ID 3) E6 (Field ID 4) E7 (Field ID 5) E8 (Field ID 6) W9 (Field ID 7)
Fine Design 
Band
6 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100
3 1.913265 60 1.744186 60 1.368613139 60 1.611747851 60 2.122642 60 1.797125 60 2.001779 60 1.893939394 60 1.929674 60
1 0.382653 15 0.348837 15 0.273722628 15 0.32234957 15 0.424528 15 0.359425 15 0.400356 15 0.378787879 15 0.385935 15
7 0.063776 10 0.05814 10 0.045620438 10 0.053724928 10 0.070755 10 0.059904 10 0.066726 10 0.063131313 10 0.064322 10
Step 12. Determine Gradation from plot
Course Design 
L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\Filter Transtion Design_NRCS(9-21-11).xlsx
Client:Denison Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Mill Date:9/21/2011
Detail:Discharge Channel Computed By:JMC
Time of Concentration
1-hour PMP (in)8.3
Kirpich SCS
Brant and
Oberman Average
Sed-Channel 0.010 4600 30.1 30.2 18.7 26.3 86.9 7.21 16.4
Source: Brant and Oberman(1975) as presented in UMTRA TAD (1989)
Formula: tc=C(L/Si^2)^(1/3).
Source:Kirpich (1940) as presented in NUREG 4620
Formula: tc=0.00013*L^0.77/S^0.385 with L in feet, tc in hours
Source: SCS as presented in NUREG 4620
Formula: tc=(11.9L^3/H)^0.385 with L in miles, H in feet, t in hours
% of one-hour PMP=RD/(0.0089*RD+0.0686) for tc<15 min based on Table 4.1 of TAD
Cell geometry and grading based on REC-1 Reclamation Plan Revisions, September, 2011
Intensity
(in/hr)
Time of Concentration (minutes)
Description
Slope
(feet/feet)
Path
Length
(feet)
% of 1-hour
PMP PDPMP (in)
L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Channel Design\riprap.xls:Time of concentration
Client:Denison Job No.: 1009740
Project:White Mesa Mill Date:9/21/2011
Detail:Discharge Channel Computed By:JMC
Peak Discharge of PMP precipitation
Sed-Channel 148.40 1 26.3 16.4 2440.1
Q (cfs)Description
Total Drainage Area
(acres)C Tc (min)Intensity (in/hr)
L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Channel
Design\riprap.xls\riprap.xls:Flow-PMP2
Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Mill Date:21-Sep-11
Detail:Discharge Channel Computed By:JMC
Manning's N-value Determination
From US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. Design of Small Dams. p. 595. 1987.
Basic N-value for channels in Rock 0.015
Modifications of N-value 0.005 Minor degree of irregularity
0.010 Moderate degree of irregularity
0.020 Severe irregualrity
Based on seismic refraction data, test numbers 1-3, shear wave velocities ranged from 3100 to 7400 feet/sec (see test results from Nielsons, 1978, Appendix A D'Appolonia, 1979). The bedrock in the area of the proposed channel
excavation is anticpated to range from soft and rippable to hard rock requiring blasting. The excavated rock surface will likely exhibit minor ro moderate irregularity.
Assume an N-value ranging from 0.020 0.030
From US Army Corps of Engineers. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, EM 1110-2-1601. p.2-16. June 1994.
From Table 2-5, Suggested Maximum Permissible Mean Channel Velocities
Poor Rock (usually sedimentary)10.0 fps
Soft Sandstone 8.0 fps
Soft Shale 3.5 fps
Good Rock (usually igneous or hard metamorphic)20.0 fps
The bedrock within the channel excavation is anticipated to consist of fine to medium-grained sandstone of varying cementation and weathering, or claystone. (see borings by Dames and Moore, 1978)
Based on the presumed rock type and the referenced table above, permissible mean channel velocities may range up to 8 to 10 fps.
Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Mill Date:21-Sep-11
Detail:Discharge Channel Computed By:JMC
Peak Channel Velocity
Design flow:2,440 cfs
Trapezoid or triangular channels
slope (ft/ft)0.009 ft/ft
Channel Side Slope 1 (ft/ft)0.33 ft/ft
Channel Side Slope 2 (ft/ft)0.33 ft/ft
bottom width 150 ft
Q 2,440 cfs
n native soils 0.020 bedrock channel with minor irregularities
Area of flow (A)258.52 ft^2
Wetted Perimeter Slope 1 (P1)5.32 ft
Wetted Perimeter Slope 2 (P2)5.32 ft
Hydraulic Radius (R) 1.61 ft
Top Width (T)160.1 ft
Maximum depth of flow (d)1.67 ft
Q calc 2440.0 cfs ok
average velocity (v)9.4 fps 8-10 fps ok
unit discharge 15.74 cfs/ft take as total Q divided by average flow width
Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740
Project: White Mesa Mill Date:21-Sep-11
Detail:Discharge Channel Computed By:JMC
Peak Channel Velocity
Design flow:2,440 cfs
Trapezoid or triangular channels
slope (ft/ft)0.009 ft/ft
Channel Side Slope 1 (ft/ft)0.33 ft/ft
Channel Side Slope 2 (ft/ft)0.33 ft/ft
bottom width 150 ft
Q 2,440 cfs
n native soils 0.030 bedrock channel with moderate irregularities
Area of flow (A)332.10 ft^2
Wetted Perimeter Slope 1 (P1)6.77 ft
Wetted Perimeter Slope 2 (P2)6.77 ft
Hydraulic Radius (R) 2.03 ft
Top Width (T)162.9 ft
Maximum depth of flow (d)2.12 ft
Q calc 2440.0 cfs ok
average velocity (v)7.3 fps less than 8-10 fps ok
unit discharge 15.60 cfs/ft take as total Q divided by average flow width

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX H

TAILINGS DEWATERING

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT H.1
TAILINGS DEWATERING INFORMATION FOR CELLS 2 AND 3
SELECT INFORMATION FROM MWH (2010)
Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
Revised Infiltration and Contaminant Transport
Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site,
Blanding, Utah
March 2010

REVISED
INFILTRATION AND CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT
MODELING REPORT
WHITE MESA MILL SITE
BLANDING, UTAH

DENISON MINES (USA) CORP.

March 2010

Prepared for:

Denison Mines (USA) Corp.
1050 17th Street, Suite 950
Denver, Colorado
80265

Prepared by:

MWH Americas, Inc.
10619 South Jordan Gateway, Suite 100
Salt Lake City, Utah
84095

APPENDIX J
TAILINGS CELL DEWATERING MODELING

J-1
APPENDIX J
TAILINGS CELL DEWATERING MODELING
This appendix describes the dewatering modeling performed with MODFLOW to
estimate the time required to dewater the tailings in Cells 2 & 3 and estimate the residual
saturated thickness of tailings. The model-predicted water levels (saturated thickness of
tailings) are used in the Giroud-Bonaparte Equation to calculate potential flux rates
through the liner into the underlying bedrock vadose zone, as described in Appendix L.
A tailings cell dewatering model was not constructed for Cells 4A & 4B because
analytical solutions presented by Geosyntec Consultants (2007) were deemed adequate
given the uniform distribution of the drain system in those cells.
Tailings Cells 2 & 3 Slimes Drains
To dewater the tailings in Cells 2 & 3, slimes drain networks consisting of perforated
PVC pipe are located across the base of the cells which drain to an extraction sump on
the southern side of each cell. The drains cover an approximately 400-foot by 600-foot
area in the southern part of the cells. The design for the slimes drains is the same for both
cells (D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, 1982). The drain pipes are situated in nine
alignments spaced 50 feet apart running in an approximately east-west direction. Each
drain is 600 feet long, extending 300 feet in each direction from the central collection
pipe that drains to the sump. The drain pipes are covered by an envelope of sand over the
drains, rather than a continuous layer across the bottom of the tailing cells (“burrito
drains”). Water gravity drains to the sump, whence it is pumped to Cell 1.
METHODOLOGY
Model Code
The computer code MODFLOW was used in this modeling effort with the Department of
Defense Groundwater Modeling System (GMS) pre- and post-processor. MODFLOW is

J-2
a modular three-dimensional finite-difference flow model developed by the United States
Geological Survey (McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988; Harbaugh et al., 2000) to calculate
hydraulic-head distribution and determine flow within a simulated aquifer. This model
was selected because it can adequately represent and simulate the hydrogeologic
conditions necessary and it is well-documented, frequently used, and a versatile program
that is widely accepted by the scientific and regulatory communities (Anderson and
Woessner, 1992).
Model Domain, Layering, and Grid
The domain for the tailings cell model was approximately 3,500 by 1,200 feet,
representing Cells 2 & 3 (see Figure J-1). The finite-difference grid consisted of a
constant spacing of 10 feet. The model included two layers to represent the tailings and
slimes drains. The bottom layer was 1 foot thick so that the drains could be simulated
explicitly (hydraulic conductivity was variable to represent tailings between the drains).
The top layer had a variable thickness that represented the tailings. The water level in the
top layer was allowed to vary spatially and temporally. The bottom elevations were set
based on information presented in the tailings cell construction report (D’Appolonia
Consulting Engineers, 1982).
Boundary Conditions
Boundary conditions define hydraulic constraints at the boundaries of the model domain.
There are three general types of boundary conditions:
1. Specified head or Dirichlet (e.g., constant head)
2. Specified flux or Neumann (e.g., constant flow, areal recharge, extraction
wells, no flow)
3. Head-dependent flux or Cauchy (e.g., drains, evapotranspiration)

J-3
No-flow boundaries are a special case of the specified flux boundary in which the flow is
set to zero.
For the tailings cell model, no-flow boundaries were assumed to surround the domain. A
net flux rate from the cell was assumed across the entire domain. This assumed flux rate
represents the combination of potential fluxes from the cell through the liner and
potential infiltration into the cell through the cover. The net flux rate was calculated
using the average infiltration rate through the cover predicted by the HYDRUS-1D
tailings cover model and the potential flux rate through the bottom of
Cells 2 & 3 (see Appendix L). The resulting average net flux rate for Cells 2 & 3 was
6.9 x 10-4 cm/day (2.27 x 10-5 ft/day). This assumed net flux rate was applied uniformly
across the domain and was simulated with MODFLOW as a negative recharge rate.
The slimes drains were simulated with the Drain package in MODFLOW. Drains are
head-dependent boundary conditions in which flow varies based on the difference in
hydraulic head in the aquifer and the drain: as head in the aquifer declines (tailings in this
case), so does the dewatering rate. Groundwater flow to this array is gravity driven and
dependent on the head difference between the surrounding material and the perforated
pipe. Operation of the slimes drain extraction pump is only necessary to extract the
groundwater driven into this array to maintain a head difference. Essentially, this system
acts as a field drain array. The MODFLOW Drain package was developed specifically to
simulate this sort of gravity driven, head dependent drain system. A thorough
quantitative explanation of the MODFLOW Drain package is presented in A Modular
Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model: U.S. Geological
Survey Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, book 6, chap. A1 (McDonald and
Harbaugh, 1988).
Drain cells were set along nine alignments spaced 50 feet apart. Each drain was 600 feet
long. Drains were set in the model as shown on Figure J-1.

J-4
Hydraulic Properties
The saturated hydraulic conductivity of the tailings assumed for White Mesa was based
on measured values reported for the aquifer testing performed in uranium mill tailings at
Cotter Corporation’s Canon City Mill tailings impoundment (MFG, Inc., 2005). See
Appendix I for details concerning the comparison of tailings grain size for the White
Mesa Mill to those of the Canon City Mill. The average hydraulic conductivity of the
tailings ranged from 2.1 ft/day (7.4 x 10-4 cm/sec) to 8.5 ft/day (3.0 x 10-3 cm/sec) with
an average value of 4.8 ft/day (1.7 x 10-3 cm/sec). A hydraulic conductivity of 4.8 ft/day
was assumed for the tailings (in both model layers). A hydraulic conductivity of
25 ft/day was assumed for the sand adjacent to the slimes drain in the bottom layer of the
model. This was used only in layer 1 in the cells that represent drains. Hydraulic
conductivity values representative of tailings were assumed across the remainder of the
bottom layer.
Calibration
The calibration process involves iterating values for model parameters in sequential
model simulations to produce estimated values that better match field-measured data.
The initial-parameter values were adjusted through calibration until the model produced
results that adequately simulated the known data. The tailings cell model was calibrated
by varying the drain conductance term until the flow rates approximately matched the
2007 dewatering rates (average rate of 12.5 gpm) and average water levels of 20 feet
above the liner.
RESULTS
The MODFLOW dewatering model predicts that the tailings would draindown
nonlinearly through time reaching an average saturated thickness of 3.5 feet (1.07 m)
after 10 years of dewatering (see Figure J-2). The model also predicts that dewatering
rates would decline to approximately 2 gallons per minute (gpm) after 10 years of
pumping. This reduction in pumping rates is caused by the reduction in saturated

J-5
thickness of tailings. Dewatering rates are also controlled by the saturated hydraulic
conductivity of the tailings. If the actual hydraulic conductivity of the tailings is higher
than the value assumed in the model, dewatering rates could be higher and water levels
could be lowered more rapidly. Conversely, if the actual hydraulic conductivity of the
tailings is lower than the value assumed in the model, dewatering rates could be lower
and water levels could require more time to dewater. Mass balance errors for the
MODFLOW model were less than 1%.
A dewatering model was not constructed for Cells 4A & 4B because dewatering rates
were estimated by Geosyntec Consultants (2007). Water levels in Cell 4A were
estimated to decline to less than 1 foot after approximately six years of dewatering. Cells
4A & 4B is estimated to be dewatered significantly faster than Cells 2 & 3 due to the
more extensive slimes drain network. The dewatering system in Cell 4B is assumed to be
designed similarly to Cell 4A, thus dewatering rates were assumed to be similar.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M.P., and W.W. Woessner, 1992. Applied Groundwater Modeling:
Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport. Academic Press, Inc. Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich, Publishers, San Diego, CA. 381p.
D’Appolonia Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1982. Construction Report, Initial Phase – Tailings Management System, White Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding, Utah.
Geosyntec Consultants, 2007. Analysis of Slimes Drains for White Mesa Mill - Cell 4A,
Computations submitted to Denison Mines, 12 May 2007.
Harbaugh, A.W., Banta, E.R., Hill, M.C., and McDonald, M.G., 2000, MODFLOW-
2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model -- User guide to modularization concepts and the Ground-Water Flow Process: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 00-92, 121 p.
McDonald, M.G., and Harbaugh, A.W., 1988, A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-
Difference Ground-Water Flow Model: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of
Water-Resources Investigations, book 6, chap. A1, 586 p.

J-6
MFG, Inc., 2005. Update of the Mill Decommissioning and Tailings Reclamation Plan for the Cotter Corporation Canon City Milling Facility (Appendix A 1999
Tailings Investigation). Prepared for Cotter Corporation. August 2005.

J-7

Figure J-1. MODFLOW tailings cell model domain, grid, and boundary conditions

J-8
Figure J-2. Model-predicted average saturated thickness of tailings in Cells 2 & 3 with dewatering pumping.

20
g 15 "' b.O c:
;!§
0
"' "' Q) c: -" u 10 :.c 1-
"'C ~ ~ E ro Vl
Q) b.O ~ 5 Q) > <(
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (years)

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

ATTACHMENT H.2
TAILINGS DEWATERING INFORMATION FOR CELLS 4A AND 4B
SELECT INFORMATION FROM GEOSYNTEC (2008a, 2008b) AND DRC (2008)
Geosyntec'>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
D~~ ~~
Client: Mines Project: White Mesa Mill Proposal No.: SC0349-0l ___;_,;,;;;,;;=-.:=.=.::..:.;;,::...=:.:....... _______ Task No. 04
Title of Computations ANALYSIS OF SLIMES DRAIN
Computations by: Signature
Printed Name Meghan Lithgow Date
Title Staff Engineer
Assumptions and Signature
Procedures Checked Printed Name Gregory T. Corcoran Date by:
(peer reviewer) Title Principal
Computations Signature
Checked by: Printed Name Gregory T. Corcoran Date
Title Principal
Computations Signature
backchecked by: Printed Name Meghan Lithgow Date (originator)
Title Staff Engineer
Approved by: Signature (pm or designate) Printed Name Gregory T. Corcoran Date
Title Principal
Approval notes:
Revisions (number and initial all revisions)
No. Sheet Date By Checked by Approval
SC0349/SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page of 11
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-0l
Mines Ceii4A Proposal No.:
PURPOSE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Date: 05/12/07
Task 04
No.:
The purpose of this calculation package is to demonstrate that the proposed "slimes
drain system" will dewater the tailings at the site within a reasonable time.
Fluid flow rate in porous media will be evaluated using Darcy's law.
ASSUMPTIONS
• This project involves the construction of a 42 acre double lined tailings cell (Cell
4A) that is approximately 42 feet deep at its deepest point and 26 feet deep at the
shallowest point with an average depth of 34 feet. The liquids level in the cell
will be kept a minimum of 3 feet below the top of the berm (free-board).
Therefore, the maximum depth of liquid in the cell will be 39 feet at the start of
dewatering.
• The cell will be filled with -28 mesh (US No. 30 sieve) tailings, largely
consisting of fine sands and silts, with some clay. Results of grinding test sieve
analyses, which are reported based on Tyler Mesh sieve sizes, are presented in
Table 1. The grinding test data report is presented in Attachment A. Sieve to
Tyler Mesh conversions are presented in Attachment B.
• The tailings will be placed within the cell in a slurry form under the surface of
the free liquid contained within the cell. This placement methodology is
anticipated to result in a low density (no compaction) soil structure. Therefore,
saturated hydraulic conductivity and total porosity are anticipated to be higher
than similar soils that are compacted.
• Based on the grinding report (Attachment A), tailings are comprised of
approximately 6% medium sand, 49% fine sand, and 45% silt and clay size
particles (Table 1 ).
• Based on the gradation of the tailings (Table 1) from the grinding report
(Attachment A), the tailings would be classified as silty sand (SM) by the unified
soil classification system (USCS). According to the Hydrologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) Model Engineering Documentation (Attachment
C), low density SM soils would exhibit saturated hydraulic conductivities of
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 2 of II
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11107 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-0l
Mines Ce114A Proposal No.:
Date: 05/12/07
Task 04
No.:
between 1.7x10-3 em/sec and 5.2x10-4 em/sec and low density silt (ML) and
sandy clay (SC) would exhibit saturated hydraulic conductivities of between
3.7x10-4 em/sec and 1.2x10-4 em/sec. The geomean ofthese two groups of soils,
which are gradationally similar to the tailings, is 4.74x10-4 em/sec (Table 2).
According to Cedergren (Attachment D), under a normal stress of 2 tons per
square foot (approximate normal stress on deeper tailings in the cell), medium
sand, fine sand, silt, and silty clay would exhibit a saturated hydraulic
conductivities of approximately 2x10-2 em/sec, 1x10-2 em/sec, 1x10-4 em/sec
5x10-7 em/sec, respectively. The geomean of these three soil types, where are
gradationally similar to the tailings, is 3.31x 1 o-4 em/sec. The more conservative,
lower hydraulic conductivity of 3.31x1 o-4 em/sec, will be used in this analysis.
• Based on the gradation of the tailings from the grinding report, the tailings
would be classified as silty sand (SM) by the unified soil classification system
(USCS). According to the HELP Model Engineering Documentation
(Attachment C), low density SM soils would exhibit drainable porosity of
between 0.251 and 0.332 and low density silt (ML) and sandy clay (SC) would
exhibit drainable porosity of between 0.154 and 0.231. The average of these two
groups of soils, which are gradationally similar to the tailings, is 0.253 (Table 2).
According to the HELP Model Engineering Documentation, medium sand, fine
sand, silt, and silty clay would exhibit drainable porosity values of 0.35, 0.29,
0.14, and 0.11, respectively. The average of these three soil types, where are
gradationally similar to the tailings, is 0.22. Since the average drainable porosity
of 0.22 corresponds to the lower hydraulic conductivity (higher density, lower
permeability, lower porosity) selected above, this value will be used in this
analysis.
• The permeability of the tailings is isotropic.
• Darcy's law will be used to compute groundwater flow velocities.
• The proposed slimes drain system will consist of a series of strip drains
(geotextile wrapped HDPE core, 1" thick, 12" wide, with a transmissivity of
29 (gallminlft), which connect to a perforated 4" diameter PVC header pipe that
is bedded in drainage aggregate and wrapped in a woven geotextile. The PVC
pipe will convey the liquid to the sump for removal.
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 3 of 11
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11107 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 05/12/07
Client: Denison
Mines
Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01
Ce114A Proposal No.:
Task 04
No.:
• The slimes drain spacing will be 50' and will be continuous across the base of
the cell (Figure 1 ).
CALCULATIONS
The flow geometry for the average depth of liquid within the cell is illustrated on Figure
2 and used to compute the emptying time for the proposed slimes drain system.
Calculate the flow into a unit length of strip drain for the various hydraulic gradient
conditions.
At the start of cell dewatering, the maximum depth of liquid will vary between 23 feet at
the shallow end and 39 feet at the deep end, with an average depth of approximately 31
feet. As the water level drops within the cell, the length of the longest flow path and the
associated hydraulic gradient will continually change with time.
The total volume to be drained by a unit length of strip, Q, can be calculated using
Darcy's law as follows:
Q=kiA
where:
k = hydraulic conductivity of tailings = 3. 31 X 10-4 em/sec = 6. 51 X 10-4 ft/min
i =gradient along flowpath = dh = _2_!_ = 0.78 (see Figure 2)
dl 39.8
A= area of strip drain where flow will pass =1.17 ft2/ft
Q=(6.51x10-4 ~ )(0.78)(1.17 ft2) mm
ft3 Q = 5.94x10-4 -. x 7.48 gallft3 = 4.44x10-3 gpm
mm
(see Figure 3)
For each one foot incremental drop in fluid elevation within the cell, the total volume to
be drained by a unit length of strip drain is as follows:
V = 1 ft unit length x 1ft depth x 50ft width x .022 (drainable porosity)= 11 CF of free
liquid
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec 0
consultants
Page 4 of 11
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11107 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01
Mines Celi4A Proposal No.:
Date: 05/12107
Task 04
No.:
Therefore, the time to drain the first one foot of liquid within the cell can be estimated
as follows:
t = V/Q = 11 CF I 5.94x10-4 CF/min = 18,519 minutes= 12.86 days
Tables 3, 4, and 5 depict the calculations for the maximum (39 feet), average (31 feet),
and minimum (23 feet) cell liquid depth, respectively. The results of the maximum
depth calculations indicate that the proposed slimes drain system will allow the tailings
contained in Cell4A to drain within approximately 5.5 years.
Calculate the design flow rate of the strip drains.
For this calculation we will assume that the strip drains have a flow rate of29 gallon per
minute per foot (Attachment E, GDE Multi-Flow, 2006), a width of 12" and that flow is
occurring under a gradient ofO.Ol.
Design Flow rate of strip drains:
q=E>i
where:
q = flowrate per unit width
i = dh = 0.01
dl
e = transmissivity = 29 gpm/ft
To account for detrimental effects on the geonet such as chemical clogging,
biological clogging, installation defects, and creep, partial factors of safety were used to
reduce the strip drain transmissivity. Using recommended partial factor of safety values
from Koerner (1999) (Attachment F, 2/4), the reduced transmissivity is calculated as
follows:
1
@allow= eult[ ] FS1N x FScR x FScc x FSnc
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 5 of ll
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 05/12/07
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01
Mines Ce114A Proposal No.:
where:
e allow = allowable flow
e ultimate = calculated value of flow
Task 04
No.:
FSIN =factor of safety for installation, 1.5 (CQA performed during installation)
FScR = factor of safety for creep, 2.0
FScc = factor of safety for chemical clogging, 2.0
FS8c = factor of safety for biological clogging, 1.0 (low pH precludes biological
activity)
The factors of safety are used to calculate the allowable transmissivity:
e = 29 gpm [ 1 ] = 4 83 gpm
allow fi 1 0 . fi f .5 X 2.0 X 2. X 1.0 f
Using this transmissivity value, the average factor of safety for flow in the strip
composite is estimated to be as follows:
FS = QD = 4·83 gpm = 1,087 (Acceptable)
QR 0.0044 gpm
The average allowable flow rate is much larger than the average maximum flow rate,
even with the built-in partial factors of safety. Furthermore, as indicated on Tables 3, 4,
and 5, the calculated flow rate within the strip drain decreases with time, which further
increases the factor of safety.
Calculate the minimum required AOS and permittivity for filtration geotextile
component of strip drain
The geotextile serves as a filter between the strip composite core and the tailings
material. The geotextile minimizes fine particles of the tailings material from migrating
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec '>
consultants
Page 6 of 11
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 05/12/07
Client: Denison
Mines
Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01
Ceii4A Proposal No.:
Task 04
No.:
into the strip composite, yet allows water to penetrate. Migration of fine particles would
have the adverse effect of decreasing the transmissivity of the strip composite layer.
To be conservative in these calculations, the tailings material soil is assumed to consist
of more than 20 percent clay.
The retention requirements for geotextiles can be evaluated using the chart entitled "Soil
Retention Criteria for Steady-State Flow Conditions" developed by Luettich et al.,
(1991) (Attachment G, 1/3). This chart uses soil properties to evaluate the required
apparent opening size (AOS or 0 95) of the geotextile. Using the Soil Retention Chart,
the AOS of the filter fabrics shall be:
0 95 < 0.21 mm, which corresponds to sieve No. 70.
The permeability of the filter fabric must be evaluated to allow flow through the filter
fabric. The following equation can be used to evaluate the minimum allowable
geotextile permeability:
(Luettich et al. (1991), Att. G, 2/3)
where: kg= permeability of geotextile ( cm/s)
is = hydraulic gradient (dimensionless)
ks =permeability of the tailings material ( cm/s)
Hydraulic Gradient, i: Attachment G, page 3/3 from Luettich et al. (1991) lists typical
hydraulic gradients for various geotextile drainage applications. In this attachment, a
hydraulic gradient of 10 for liquid impoundment applications is recommended.
Soil Permeability, ks: A permeability of 3.31 x 1 o-4 cm/s was assumed for the tailings
material, as previously defined.
Therefore,
kg> is ks = (10)(3.31x10-4 cm/s)
kg> 3.31 x 10-cm/s
Koerner (1999) suggests applying partial factors of safety to the ultimate flow capacity
of the geotextile to account for clogging of the geotextile. Using recommendations
SC0349 -Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec'>
consultants
Page 7 of 11
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 05/12/07
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01 Task 04
No.: Mines Celi4A Proposal No.:
given in Table 2.12 on p. 150 of Koerner (1999) (Attachment F, 1/4), the following
partial safety values were applied:
soil clogging and blinding:
creep reduction of voids:
intrusion into voids:
chemical clogging:
biological clogging (low pH precludes biological activity):
Therefore,
kg>
kg>
(3.31 X 10-3)(1 0)(2)( 1.2)( 1.5)( 1)
0.12 cm/s
10(5-10)
2.0 (1.5-2.0)
1.2 (1.0 -1.2)
1.5 (1.2-1.5)
1.0 (2 -10)
The thickness of a typical nonwoven needled punched 4 oz/yd2 (135 g/m2) geotextile is
approximately 40 mils (0.1 0 em), see Attachment H. Dividing the permeability by the
thickness of the geotextile results in a required minimum permittivity of 1.2 sec-1• The
geotextile used in this project has a permittivity of 2.0 sec-1, which is greater than the
required permittivity.
Check Pipe Flow Rate
Based on calculations from previous sections, the maximum daily flow rate to the sump
is estimated to be 132 gpm (0.29 cfs) (Table 3). The capacity of the pipe is calculated
based on Manning's equation for gravity flow as follows:
Where
n = 0.010 (Koerner (1999), Attachment E, 4/4)
S =Slope of liner (ft/ft) = 1.0%
Rh = hydraulic radius, ft
Q = flow rate, cubic feet per second, cfs
A = flow area, sf
Assuming 4-inch pipe:
A= n D2/4 = 12.6 sq. inches= 0.088 sf
Rh =Area (n D2/4)/Wetted Perimeter (n D)
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 8 of II
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11107 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01
Mines Ceii4A Proposal No.:
= D/4 = 1 in= 0.083 ft
1 486 2/ II Q =-·-o.083730.0V2 0.088 sf= 0.28 eft= 112 gpm
0.010
Date: 05/12/07
Task 04
No.:
Since 112 gpm is less than the maximum required 132 gpm, this calculation shows that
the 4-inch diameter slimes drain pipe is the limiting factor for dewatering the tailings in
the early phase of dewatering (high flow rates). However, it does not mean that the pipe
will be unable to handle this flow, but rather the pipe will require additional time to
drain. The additional time needed is computed in the following section.
Effect of Maximum Pipe Capacity on Drainage Time
The maximum capacity of the pipe is 112 gpm, as computed above. Assuming the cell's
total lateral length of strip drain is 27,550 feet, the flow rate, per foot of strip drain is
calculated to be:
1 R _112gallon*60min*24hr* 1ft3 * 1 _078 ft3
Fowate----.-
min 1 hr 1 day 7.48 gallon 27,550 feet day
The time needed to de-water first layer is:
Volume (50x1x1x0.22) ft3 __ 14 1 d Time = = 3 • ays
Drain length x flow rate 1ft x 0.78 ft
day
The difference between the maximum daily flow rate drainage time and the maximum
daily flow the pipe is able to deliver for the first foot is:
14.1 day-11.93 day (first row of Table 3) = 2.17 days.
Therefore, the first layer will require an additional 2.17 days to drain. The calculation is
repeated until the pipe's allowable flow capacity of 112 gpm is equal to the maximum
flow rate from the cell (Table 3). The additional drainage time needed for each layer is
added to the original drainage time of 5.5 years. The results of this analysis are shown
in Table 3.
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 9 of 11
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 05/12/07
Client: Denison
Mines
Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01
Ceii4A Proposal No.:
Task 04
No.:
The total additional drainage time occurs over the first 9layers and adds 11 days (0.03
years) to the computed drainage time. Including the effects of the maximum pipe
capacity, the cell will take an estimated 5.5 years to drain.
Effect of Precipitation on Drainage Time
To account for the effect of precipitation added to the tailings cell, the HELP Model was
used to estimate the average annual leakage through a 3 foot thick (tailings above the
liquid) layer of silty sand material (Attachment I). HELP Model default parameters
were used along with a maximum 16 inch evaporative zone (conservative for dry
climate) and weather data from Grand Junction, Colorado. The model was performed
for a 10 year period and included precipitation events ranging from 5.83 to 10.36 inches
per year.
The results of this analysis suggest that a maximum average annual percolation through
the 3 foot soil layer above the liquid will be approximately 12 fe per acre or 504 fe
(3,770 gal.) for the entire Cell4A area.
The average flow rate during Cell 4A dewatering, as calculated from Table 3 is equal to
71 gpm (102,240 gallon/day).
The time required to drain the additional volume of precipitation in the tailing is
computed using the following equation:
Time= Volume = 3,770 gal = 0.04 days
Flow Rate 1 02 240 gal
' day
The additional time that the pond will require to empty due to precipitation is
insignificant.
Therefore, the estimated time to dewater Cell4A will be 5.5 years (baseline)+ 0.03
years (pipe limitations)+ 0 years (precipitation)= 5.5 years.
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Geosyntec ':>
consultants
Page 10 of II
Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 05/11/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-0I
Mines Ceii4A Proposal No.:
REFERENCES
Cedergren, H.R., "Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets," 3rd Ed., John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989
(Attachment D)
GDE Control Products, Inc. November 2006. Accessed 13 March 2007
<http://www.gdecontrol.com/Multi-Flow5.html>
(Attachment E)
Date: 05/12/07
Task 04
No.:
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance Model, Engineering Documentation for
Version 3, EPA, 1994.
(Attachment C)
Koerner, R. M., "Designing With Geosynthetics," 4th Ed., Prentice Hall, 1999.
(Attachment F)
Luettich, S.M., Giroud, J.P., and Bachus, R.C., (1991 ), "Geotextile Filter Design
Manual, report prepared for Nicolon Corporation, Norcross, GA.
(Attachment G)
Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Company, (1991), "Amoco Waste Related Geotextiles."
(Attachment H)
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc.051207.doc
Table 1
DSM Screen Undersize Gradation
SIEVE ANALYSIS
Grinding Test 1 Grinding Test 2A Grinding Test 28 Grinding Test 3A Grinding Test 38
Wt. Retained % Wt. Retained % Wt. Retained % Wt. Retained % Wt. Retained %
Sieve No. Diameter (mm) (grams) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained %Finer
3in. 76.2 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%
2 in. 50.8 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%
11/2 in. 38.1 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%
1 in. 25.4 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%
3/4 in. 19.1 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%
1/2 in. 12.7 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%
3/8 in. 9.530 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%
No.4 4.750 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%
No.10 2.000 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%
No. 30 0.600 1.2 1.2% 98.8% 2.0 2.0% 98.0% 1.7 1.7% 98.3% 2.4 2.4% 97.6% 1.9 1.9% 98.1%
No. 40 0.425 4.6 4.6% 95.4% 7.3 7.3% 92.7% 6.0 6.0% 94.0% 8.1 8.1% 91.9% 6.9 6.9% 93.1%
No. 70 0.212 20.8 20.8% 79.2% 24.5 24.5% 75.5% 22.6 22.6% 77.4% 26.2 26.2% 73.8% 27.9 27.9% 72.1%
No.100 0.150 34.8 34.8% 65.2% 38.1 38.1% 61.9% 35.5 35.5% 64.5% 41.0 41.0% 59.0% 43.9 43.9% 56.1%
No. 200 0.075 53.4 53.4% 46.6% 55.7 55.7% 44.3% 52.5 52.5% 47.5% 56.6 56.6% 43.4% 57.4 57.4% 42.6%
No. 325 0.045 60.5 60.5% 39.5% 62.7 62.7% 37.3% 58.8 58.8% 41.2% 62.5 62.5% 37.5% 61.9 61.9% 38.1%
Pan -- ---- - --------
Grinding Test 6A Grinding Test 68 Grinding Test 4A Grinding Test 48
vvt. Ketamea "lo vvt. Ketamea "/o . Ketamea .,, vv1. Ketamea .,,
Sieve No. Diameter (mm) (grams) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained %Finer (grams) Retained %Finer
3 in. 76.2 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
2 in. 50.8 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
11/2 in. 38.1 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
1 in. 25.4 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
3/4 in. 19.1 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
1/2 in. 12.7 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
3/8in. 9.530 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
No.4 4.750 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
No.10 2.000 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0% 100.0%
No.30 0.600 1.3 1.3% 98.7% 1.0 1.0% 99.0% 2.7 2.7% 97.3% 2.7 2.7% 97.3%
No.40 0.425 5.2 5.2% 94.8% 4.7 4.7% 95.3% 7.6 7.6% 92.4% 7.3 7.3% 92.7%
No. 70 0.212 21.7 21.7% 78.3% 21.4 21.4% 78.6% 26.2 26.2% 73.8% 25.9 25.9% 74.1%
No.100 0.150 34.1 34.1% 65.9% 35.9 35.9% 64.1% 38.7 38.7% 61.3% 39.2 39.2% 60.8%
No. 200 0.075 54.4 54.4% 45.6% 54.4 54.4% 45.6% 57.3 57.3% 42.7% 58.3 58.3% 41.7%
No. 325 0.045 59.7 59.7% 40.3% 61.1 61.1% 38.9% 65.4 65.4% 34.6% 64.6 64.6% 35.4%
Pan ------------
JCoarse Medium Fine Silt
Sand Sand Sand Clay
100%
90% ~
~~ a:= 80% -~ 'h. ~ 70%
u::: 60% "' 1---~ z 50% -·-r-------c-~··---1--1-----w
0 40% -·-· -·-·---a:= ' w ll. 30% -------·-~-
20% --f---~--
10% -r-·· -----· ~ ---f--·-r--·
0%
1000 100 10 0.1 0.01 0.001
%FINER= 100-!%RETAINED
GRAIN DIAMETER (MM) 5/1212007
Soil
med sand
fine sand
silt
silty clay
average
geomean
Soil
SM (LS)
SM (LFS)
SM (SL)
SM (FSL)
ML (L)
ML (SiL)
SC (SCL)
average
geomean
Notes:
Table 2
Tailings Parameters
Permeability(1l Drainable Porosity(2l
(em/sec) (vol./vol.)
2.00E-02 0.35
1.00E-02 0.29
1.00E-04 0.14
6.00E-07 0.11
7.53E-03 0.22
3.31E-04 0.20
Permeability(3l Drainable Porosity(3l
(em/sec) (vol./vol.)
1.70E-03 0.332
1.00E-03 0.326
7.20E-04 0.263
5.20E-04 0.251
3.70E-04 0.231
1.90E-04 0.217
1.20E-04 0.154
6.60E-04 0.253
4.74E-04 0.246
(1) Source-"Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets", Cedergren, H. R.,
1989.
(2) Source -The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) Model, Version 3, EPA, 1994-Figure 2-Soil texture vs.
Moisture Retention.
(3) Source -The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) Model, Version 3, EPA, 1994-Table 1 -Low Density Soil
Characteristics.
Permeability Permeability Drainage Thickness Path Length (em/sec) (Wmin) (ft.) (VF)
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.3 39
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 45.8 38
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 45.4 37
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 45.0 36
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 44.6 35
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 44.2 34
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.8 33
3.31E-04 6.51 E-04 43.5 32
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.2 31
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 43.0 30
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 42.8 29
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.6 28
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.4 27
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.3 26
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 42.2 25
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 24
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 23
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 22
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 21
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.2 20
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.3 19
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.5 18
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.6 17
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.8 16
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 43.1 15
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 43.3 14
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 43.6 13
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 44.0 12
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 44.3 11
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 44.7 10
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 45.1 9
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 45.6 8
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 46.0 7
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.5 6
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 47.1 5
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 47.6 4
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 48.2 3
3.31 E-04 6.51 E-04 48.8 2
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 49.4 1
AveraQe Soil Porosity 0.22
Geomean Soil Permeability 3.31E-04 em/sec
Distance Between Drains 50 ft
Thickness of Unit 1 ft
Maximum Depth 39 ft
Length of Strip Drain 27,550 ft
Slimes Drain Drainage.0511 07 .xis
TABLE 3
White Mesa Mill
Cell 4A Slimes Drain
ax1mum ,IOU I eo1 M L" "d D th
Volume of Time to
Q (cfm/ft) Liquid Dewater
(CF/ftl (minNF/ftl
6.40E-04 11 17,185
6.31E-04 11 17,446
6.19E-04 11 17,761
6.08E-04 11 18,094
5.96E-04 11 18,446
5.85E-04 11 18,818
5.73E-04 11 19,213
5.59E-04 11 19,677
5.45E-04 11 20,172
5.30E-04 11 20,748
5.15E-04 11 21,363
4.99E-04 11 22,023
4.84E-04 11 22,731
4.67E-04 11 23,550
4.50E-04 11 24,434
4.33E-04 11 25,392
4.15E-04 11 26,496
3.97E-04 11 27,700
3.79E-04 11 29,019
3.60E-04 11 30,543
3.41 E-04 11 32,226
3.22E-04 11 34,178
3.03E-04 11 36,273
2.84E-04 11 38,721
2.64E-04 11 41,592
2.46E-04 11 44,770
2.27E-04 11 48,548
2.07E-04 11 53,076
1.89E-04 11 58,296
1.70E-04 11 64,704
1.52E-04 11 72,537
1.33E-04 11 82,509
1.16E-04 11 95,123
9.81E-05 11 112,183
8.07E-05 11 136,357
6.39E-05 11 172,255
4.73E-05 11 232,569
3.11E-05 11 353,196
1.54E-05 11 715,076
days
years
Time to Total Flow Volume Removed Pipe
Dewater Limitation
(davsNF/ftl Rate (gpm) (gal) (days)
11.93 131.92 2,266,966 2.17
12.12 129.94 2,266,966 1.98
12.33 127.63 2,266,966 1.77
12.57 125.29 2,266,966 1.53
12.81 122.90 2,266,966 1.29
13.07 120.47 2,266,966 1.03
13.34 117.99 2,266,966 0.76
13.66 115.21 2,266,966 0.44
14.01 112.38 2,266,966 0.09
14.41 109.26 2,266,966
14.84 106.11 2,266,966
15.29 102.94 2,266,966
15.79 99.73 2,266,966
16.35 96.26 2,266,966
16.97 92.78 2,266,966
17.63 89.28 2,266,966
18.40 85.56 2,266,966
19.24 81.84 2,266,966
20.15 78.12 2,266,966
21.21 74.22 2,266,966
22.38 70.34 2,266,966
23.73 66.33 2,266,966
25.19 62.50 2,266,966
26.89 58.55 2,266,966
28.88 54.50 2,266,966
31.09 50.64 2,266,966
33.71 46.70 2,266,966
36.86 42.71 2,266,966
40.48 38.89 2,266,966
44.93 35.04 2,266,966
50.37 31.25 2,266,966
57.30 27.48 2,266,966
66.06 23.83 2,266,966
77.90 20.21 2,266,966
94.69 16.63 2,266,966
119.62 13.16 2,266,966
161.51 9.75 2,266,966
245.27 6.42 2,266,966
496.58 3.17 2,266,966
1,989.58 88,411,655 11.06
5.45
5/12/2007
Permeability Permeability Drainage Thickness Path Length (em/sec) (ft/min) (ft.) (VF)
3.31E-04 6.51 E-04 39.8 31
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 39.6 30
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 39.4 29
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 39.2 28
3.31E-04 6.51 E-04 39.1 27
3.31 E-04 6.51 E-04 39.0 26
3.31E-04 6.51 E-04 38.9 25
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 38.9 24
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 39.0 23
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 39.0 22
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 39.2 21
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 39.3 20
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 39.5 19
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 39.8 18
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 40.1 17
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 40.4 16
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 40.8 15
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 41.2 14
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 41.6 13
3.31 E-04 6.51 E-04 42.1 12
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.6 11
3.31 E-04 6.51 E-04 43.1 10
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 43.7 9
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 44.3 8
3.31 E-04 6.51 E-04 44.9 7
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 45.6 6
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.2 5
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.9 4
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 47.7 3
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 48.4 2
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 49.2 1
Average Soil Porosity 0.22
Geomean Soil Permeability 3.31E-04 em/sec
Distance Between Drains 50 ft
Thickness of Unit 1 ft
Maximum Depth 31 ft
Length of Strip Drain 27,550 ft
Slimes Drain Drainage. 051107 .xis
TABLE 4
White Mesa Mill
Cell 4A Slimes Drain
verage I QUI ept A L' 'd D h
Volume of
Q (cfm/ft) Liquid
(CF/ft)
5.92E-04 11
5.76E-04 11
5.59E-04 11
5.43E-04 11
5.25E-04 11
5.07E-04 11
4.88E-04 11
4.69E-04 11
4.48E-04 11
4.29E-04 11
4.07E-04 11
3.87E-04 11
3.66E-04 11
3.44E-04 11
3.22E-04 11
3.01E-04 11
2.79E-04 11
2.58E-04 11
2.37E-04 11
2.17E-04 11
1.96E-04 11
1.76E-04 11
1.57E-04 11
1.37E-04 11
1.18E-04 11
1.00E-04 11
8.22E-05 11
6.48E-05 11
4.78E-05 11
3.14E-05 11
1.54E-05 11
Time to
De water
(minNF/ft)
18,584
19,107
19,666
20,265
20,962
21,713
22,523
23,462
24,545
25,661
27,020
28,444
30,093
32,006
34,145
36,550
39,373
42,599
46,321
50,784
56,059
62,388
70,285
80,157
92,848
110,012
133,751
169,722
230,156
350,301
712,181
days
years
Time to Total Flow Volume Removed Dewater
(da_yJ;NF/ft) Rate (gpm) (gal)
12.91 121.98 2,266,966
13.27 118.64 2,266,966
13.66 115.27 2,266,966
. 14.07 111.86 2,266,966
14.56 108.14 2,266,966
15.08 104.41 2,266,966
15.64 100.65 2,266,966
16.29 96.62 2,266,966
17.05 92.36 2,266,966
17.82 88.34 2,266,966
18.76 83.90 2,266,966
19.75 79.70 2,266,966
20.90 75.33 2,266,966
22.23 70.83 2,266,966
23.71 66.39 2,266,966
25.38 62.02 2,266,966
27.34 57.58 2,266,966
29.58 53.22 2,266,966
32.17 48.94 2,266,966
35.27 44.64 2,266,966
38.93 40.44 2,266,966
43.33 36.34 2,266,966
48.81 32.25 2,266,966
55.66 28.28 2,266,966
64.48 24.42 2,266,966
76.40 20.61 2,266,966
92.88 16.95 2,266,966
117.86 13.36 2,266,966
159.83 9.85 2,266,966
243.26 6.47 2,266,966
494.57 3.18 2,266,966
1,841.45 70,275,931
5.05
5/12/2007
Permeability Permeability Drainage Thickness Path Length (em/sec) (ft/min) (ft.) (VF)
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 34.0 23
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 34.1 22
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 34.3 21
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 34.6 20
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 35.0 19
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 35.4 18
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 35.8 17
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 36.3 16
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 36.9 15
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 37.5 14
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 38.2 13
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 38.9 12
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 39.6 11
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 40.4 10
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 41.2 9
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 8
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.0 7
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 43.9 6
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 44.8 5
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 45.8 4
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.8 3
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 47.9 2
3.31 E-04 6.51E-04 48.9 1
Average Soil Porosity 0.22
Geomean Soil Permeability 3.31 E-04 em/sec
Distance Between Drains 50 ft
Thickness of Unit 1 ft
Maximum Depth 23 ft
Length of Strip Drain 27,550 ft
Slimes Drain Drainage.0511 07.xls
TABLE 5
White Mesa Mill
Cell 4A Slimes Drain
Minimum Liquid Depth
Volume of
Q (cfm/ft) Liquid
Time to
Dewater
(CF/ft) (minNF/ft)
5.14E-04 11 21,398
4.90E-04 11 22,437
4.65E-04 11 23,643
4.39E-04 11 25,042
4.13E-04 11 26,665
3.86E-04 11 28,468
3.61E-04 11 30,483
3.35E-04 11 32,841
3.09E-04 11 35,609
2.84E-04 11 38,773
2.59E-04 11 42,535
2.34E-04 11 46,924
2.11E-04 11 52,111
1.88E-04 11 58,480
1.66E-04 11 66,264
1.44E-04 11 76,176
1.24E-04 11 88,919
1.04E-04 11 105,910
8.48E-05 11 129,698
6.64E-05 11 165,741
4.87E-05 11 225,814
3.17E-05 11 346,682
1.55E-05 11 707,839
days
years
Time to Total Flow Volume Removed Dewater
(davsNF/ft) Rate (gpm) (gal)
14.86 105.94 2,266,966
15.58 101.04 2,266,966
16.42 95.88 2,266,966
17.39 90.53 2,266,966
18.52 85.02 2,266,966
19.77 79.63 2,266,966
21.17 74.37 2,266,966
22.81 69.03 2,266,966
24.73 63.66 2,266,966
26.93 58.47 2,266,966
29.54 53.30 2,266,966
32.59 48.31 2,266,966
36.19 43.50 2,266,966
40.61 38.76 2,266,966
46.02 34.21 2,266,966
52.90 29.76 2,266,966
61.75 25.49 2,266,966
73.55 21.40 2,266,966
90.07 17.48 2,266,966
115.10 13.68 2,266,966
156.81 10.04 2,266,966
240.75 6.54 2,266,966
491.55 3.20 2,266,966
1,665.59 52,140,207
4.56
5/12/2007
......
.olllllllllli.. GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS
SLIMES DRAIN LAYOUT
CELL 4A
BLANDING, UTAH
~
200 100 0
SCALE IN FEET
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO. SC0349
DATE: MARCH 2007
200 !!I
Page_j__of_
Geosyntec t> Written by: Gt. c~C!>~~
consultants
Client: \MS~>-N 1-'fv.v~ Project: Cez.y '/,4.
10 . ~ 0":1 db ------Date:___}___}_ Date: ..L!!!_/ 2_) _r_ Reviewe y: DD MM yy DD MM YY
Task No. 0/ fottf Project/Proposal No. Sc.o1_41
I i : I . :
i
-,
I : •
!
; ! :
i
It II -I tJ / I"' ' ! ' -' ' '
. ~-__L--h4·-:::r __ -J..---+-----+n--'tt--e: ~ J--f-l--___c-~+--~! ~-1-LLI-1-l--l--1--~~-+--+-+-r---r---r--~ ~ , r : , , LLLLW-k~~~WL~~t--t-t-rf-...::. .. vbl_/_t-: itr~~~~r~ -i--r-__ L_ 'i _ _jj_ ---'·-___ , ______ ~,_-_--_·------· ____ . __ __ L-LL~---WI~E.+--+I-++-h-J-J!I!I'Trl·----t-~v-+-H1--1ti~~LH--: ----: 1---T-. , f4!-l l "' Y l ---\ 1 l I I I
i I I ~ /fl ...... 1 I 4.1 I ":! .-L [7 i I
I 3 ~I l I .;;::: 71 [, 'hi -~ !tl ...
""0!
~ / 't\...1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~-~~~~~~~~~~~ ,~~.~~~~--+--~~~~-~~--~.,~-~~-.i i-~---~-~~-------1~-------,--:-~1-----:=l _____________ _
j____j-c--+-+1 -· t i V '"" ' T ' ~I I )(J t M., i i ' -----'---···· -~-~~:'-!-··· -~ .. ;
Page __g;_ of_
Geosyntec I> • ...,., 6_ &,~,.~ ,.. ,~ '.; ,~7 """"'""-----Date:~~yy-
consultants Client: o~!.$V"l M~Project: C£u..-4A TaskNo. Ol 1~4
I
I
....
;
"\I I
---1-·-·· ! ..... ~. i !
.L_
' • I
! ' ' I I I T I
i i I I i I i2'1 ! I i I
:
·r I
I
LJ____(__j. _ _..j_---1--+-! -!-~~ +-+L~~---rl ~~--r-1 -:! _, t---1 t±:--J:_-j ~ i t-=-=~-:-
L.J_-l---l--+-+-+--+---t--1 0Ct4J~~ 1-i ~~ ,p, -11 . ~$ ~-1 -:----L-m --~--
' I ' ' I
! I I i ! i i ! !
I' •f.. 'I i ! I i
I ! I i I i : ------------
! __ :1 ____ : ___ 1---·-----~--11----U_j___f__-+-~---+--l--+--~H-+. ---+.-;-----j--·-t·--' : --~ • -: I·---~ ...
I I
]
,.,
-.
. ;
, .. l
!
.. l
]
lJ
!
1
.J
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES RESEARCH INSTITUTE A-1
EXHIDIT 1
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION
CSMRI Sample 1
Sponsor's Designation of
Sample: Run-of-mine,
Date Received at Institute: June 5, 19 78.
Sample Weight:
Sample Container:
Sample Description:
Method of Preparation:
100, 520 lb.
Two truckloads •
Mine ore --estimate 5% +10-in. material.
Largest boulder --48 in, x 24 in. x 14 in.
Only two or three rocks were greater than
36 in.
All +10-in. material broken to -10 in, by sledge-
hammer and jackhammer. The sample was
screened at 6 in. and 1-1/2 in. with the +6 in.
fraction, put in barrels, and the -1/2 in. frac-
tion piled. The -6 in. tl-1/2 in. material was
screened at 4 in. and 1-1/2 in. with the -6 in,
+4 in. and -4 in. +1-1/2 in. fractions barreled,
The additional -1-1/2 in. fraction was piled
with the previous -1-1/2 in. fraction. A screen
size analysis of the entire quantity of mill feed
material is presented in Exhibit 3. A summary
screen size analysis of the ore is as follows:
Screen Product
in.
Head (calculated)
-10 t6
-6 +4
-4 +1-1/2
-1-1/2
Weight
o/o
100.00
2. 92
9.48
15.30
72.30
"l
u
"l
.. i
J
j
' . '1
. J
.. I
J
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES RESEARCH INSTITUTE
EXHIBIT 1
CSMRI Sample 2
Sponsor's Designation of
Sample: Crushed ore.
Date Received at Institute: June 5, 1978.
Sample Weight:
Sample Container:
Sample Description:
Method of Preparation:
47,380 lb.
One truckload.
Ore previously crushed to -3 in., maximum
particles approximately 2-1/2 in.
The ore was used as received.
A-2
'·--'
Grinding Test 1, Autogenous
Mill-
Bearing
Running -Disc Meter Oil
Clock Time Revolutions Reading Temp.
~ ~ sec/rev watt-hr __ 'F __
0910 104
0915 5 lZ.Z 1Z,964
1005 55 8. 7
1030 80 6.8 lOS
1100 110 6.5 lZ, 977 106
1135 145
ll4Z 145
1150 153 6.Z 109
1Z30 193 6.0 1Z,988 111
1300 ZZ3 6.2 liZ
1345 Z38
1400 253 6.4 liZ
1415 Z68 6.3 13,004 liZ
Average
EXHIBIT Z
GRINDING TESTS
Date:
Feed Rate, stph:
Ore:
DSM Scree a, in. width:
DSM Screen Opening, mm:
Measured Mill Power Tare {empty mill), kw:
.June 13, 1978 z
Run-of-mine
12
l.Z7
Z.06
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw: 0.6
Ore Feed Rate {as received}(!) Mill Sweco Screen DSM Screen OSM Screen
-4 in .. -6 in .. -10 in. Discharge Oversize Overflow Underflow
-1-1/2 in. +1-1/Z in. +4 in. +6 in. Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids
~ 1b/br lb/br lb/br _L lb/br _L lb/br _L lb/hr _L~
3, 150 61Z 380 116 63 8,335 Z, 6-{i,CZ) Z,880 6!Z 380 116 6Z 90 506 60 3,348 57
Z,835 6!Z 380 116 69 90 304 70 3, 591 58 noCZ)
Z,993 61Z 380 116 66 69 4,ZZ3 58 679(Z)
Z,993 6!Z 380 116 69 1Z,4ZO 90 1.114 70 5,544 56 z, 583
Z, 903 61Z 380 li6 64 10,8Z9 90 405 69 6, 955 60 4,388
3, 319 6!Z 380 116 65 11,Z3Z 90 365 70 6,048 60 3, 861
3,128 61Z 380 li6 65 11,700 90 12Z 69 3,229 60 3, 996
.w.1Q. 61Z 380 ill £2. 9.945 .2!1. __211. l! 3, 515 ll Z,907
3, 019 61Z 380 116 65 10,744 90 480 69 4,557 59 3,547
Mill
Mill Water Load
Meter Rate Volume
_%_ lb/hr -"'-'-Rernarks
Start mill.
90 z, 858
90 Z, 858
90 Z, 858
80 Z,540
Mill down, elevator plugged.
Start mill.
75 Z,38Z
81 Z,57Z
Pump plugged. DSM feed ..
80 2,540 Sample
12. Z,509 15 Sample.
83 Z,640
(1) Moisture: -1-1/Z in., z. Bo;to;: -4 in. +1-1/2 in., 1. Oo;to; -6 in. +4 in., 0. So/o; -10 in. +6 in., 0. 7%. Average dry ore feed rate: -1-1/2 in., Z, 934.5 lb/hr; -4 in. +1-1/Z in., 605.9 lb/hr; -6 in. +4 in.,
376.8 lb/hr; -10 in. +6 in .. , 115.0 lb/hr; total, 4,03Z.Z lb/br, Z.Ol6 dry etph. Mill volume end of test: IS'fo.
{Z) Excluded from average.
Feed Rate, stph dry: 2.016
Ball Charge; None
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill). kw: 0. 6
Instantaneous Instantaneous Corrected Power Circulating
Running Disc Gross Power Power Consum;etion Load
Clock Time Revolutions (meter reading) (from input-output curve) Gross Net Weight%
Tim.e ~ sec/rev kwbr kwhr kwhr/st kwhr/st of Feed( I)
0910
0915 1Z.Z 4.ZS Z.64 1.31 1.0!
1005 55 8.7 5.96 4.ZS 2.11 1.81
1030 80 6.8 7.62 5.80 Z.88 z.ss
llOO 110 6.5 7.97 6.10 3,03 z. 73
1135 145
liSO 153 6.2 8.36 6.47 3.21 Z.91(2) 162.0
1230 193 6.0 8.64 6.73 3.34 3.04(2) 183.0
1300 ZZ3 6.2 8.36 6.47 3.Z1 Z.91(Z) 145.0
1345 Z38
1400(3) Z53 6.4 8.10 6,23 Z.09 Z. 79(Z) 79.0
1415(3) Z68 6.3 B.Z3 6.35 3.15 z.s5CZl 100.0
Average 2.90 !33.8
(1) Calculated: Swn of Sweco oversize and DSM oversize as percentage of dry mill feed.
(2) Average for power (last five readings): 2.90 kwhr/st.
(3) Sam.ple run.
Mill
Discharge
Solids
!. Rem.arks
63
6Z
69
66
Unplug bucket elevator.
69
64
65
Unplug DSM feed pump.
65
65
n 0 ;;
~ > " 0
~ n X 0 0
:J
~ .J.
~; ..
:..!
't.
.; ·.l
I ;... f
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES RESEARCH INSTITUTE A-4
EXHIBIT 2
Grinding Test 1 --continued
Procedure: Sam.ple was wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried,
and the +325M material dry screened using a Ro-Tap for 30
min.
Test Product
Sam.ple Time:
Sample Weight, g:
Screen Product
(Tyler) Mesh
Head (calculated)
+28
-28 +35
-35 +65
-65 +100
-100 +200
-200 +325
-325
Screen Size Analysis
DSM Screen
Undersize
1415
4,630.5
Weight
%
100.0
1.2
3.4
16.2
14.0
18.6
7.1
39.5
No. 1.C'
No. 4D
No .. ro
No. 100
No. l.OO
No. '!2.6
,.
L-.-....
EXHIBIT Z
Grinding Test 2
Date:
Feed Rate, stph:
Ore:
Ball Charge:
-1-1/2 in. +1 in. Balls, 1b:
-2. in. +l-1/Z in. Balls, lb:
3 in. Balls, Ib:
DSM Screen, in. width:
DSM Screen Openings, :rnm:
Measured Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw:
Corrected Mill Power Tare {empty mill), kw:
Mill-
Bearing Ore Feed Rate {as received!(!) Mill
Running Disc Meter ou 4in. -6 in. -10 in. Discharse
Clock Time Revolutions Reading Temp. -1-1/Z in. +1-1/2 in. +4 in. +6 in. Solids Solids
Time ~ sec/rev ~ __ •F __ lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr lb/hr __...1!_ lb/hr
1040 0 8.7 102. 61Z 380 116
1110 30 5.2 104 612. 380 116
1130 50 5.3 106 3,060 612. 380 116 62. 8,147
12.00 80 5.0 108 2.,846 6IZ 380 116 63 6;577
1230 110 4.8 13,02.3 Ill 3,105 612. 380 116 64 8,467
1300 140 4.8 liZ 3,I39 6IZ 380 116 63 6,9I7
1330 170 4.8 113 3,263 6IZ 380 116 66 8,494
1400 zoo 4.9 113 2, 981 612 380 116 66 9,029
1415 Z15 5.0 113 2.,869 612 380 116 66 10,098
1430 2.30 5.0 13,044 113 2,993 612. 380 .!!.2. ~ 8,483
Average 3,032. 612. 380 116 65 8,2.77
June I4, 1978
z.o
Run-of-mine
Total: 301.8 Ib; Zo/o mill volume
114.5
151.3
36.0
12.
1.2.7
2..06
0.6
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen
Oversize Overflow Underflow
Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids
_L lb/hr __...1!_ lb/hr _L_ lb/hr
. '1 :_.........,;
MUl
Water
Meter Rate
__...1!_ lb/hr
95 3,017
83 z, 636
50 248 74 1, 565 54 2., 989(2) 84 2.,668
67 653 71 1, I50 82 2.,604
64 605 73 I, 2.81 82. 2.,604
62. 39I 73 2.,102 57 3,694 8I 2, 572.
63 595 69 3,571 56 3,881 SI Z, 572.
64 624 71 2,939 58 3,680 81 2., 572.
64 547 70 3,119 58 3,811 79 2.,509
.§! 557 1l 3,2.59 57 3,565 79 2.,509
62. 52.8 72. 2.,373 57 3, 72.6 83 2.,62.6
. ''1 .___.;
Mill
Load
Volume
~
9
Remarks
Start mill.
Sample.
Sample.
End of test.
(1) Moisture: -1-1/Z in., 2.8o/o; -4 in. +1-l/2. in., l.Oo/o; -6 in. +4 in., 0.80fo; -10 in. +6 in., 0.7o/o. Average dry ore feed rate: -1-I/2. in., 2.,947.0 1b/hr; -4 in. +1-I/2. in., 605.9 lb/hr;
-6 in. +4 in., 376.8 lb/hr; -10 in. +6 in., 115.0 lb/hr; total: 4,044. 7lb/hr, 2..02.2. dry stph. Mill volume end of test: 9%.
(2.) Excluded from average.
Feed Rate, stph dry:
Ball Charge:
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw:
2.02.2
301.8 lb, 2.% mill volume
0.6
Instantaneous Instantaneous Corrected Power Circulating
Running Disc Gross Power Power ConsumEtion Load
Clock Time Revolutions (meter reading) (fTom input-output curve) Gross Net Weight%
~ ~ sec[rev kwhr kwhr kwh/st kwh/st of Feed(l)
1040 0 8.7 5.96 4.22. Z.09 I. 79
1110 30 5.2. 9.97 7.93 3.92. 3.63
1130 50 5.3 9.78 7. 78 3.85 3.55
1200 80 5.0 10.36 8.25 4.08 3.78
1230 110 4.8 10.80 8.63 4.2.7 3.97
1300 140 4.8 10.80 8.63 4.2.7 3.97 59.o<4 l
1330 170 4.8 10.80 8.63 4.2.7 3.97 95.0
1400 zoo 4.9 10.58 8.44 4.17 3,88 87.0
1415(3) Zl5 5.0 10.36 s.zs 4.08 3. 78(2.) 9Z.O
1430(3) Z30 5.0 10.36 8.2.5 4.08 3. 78(2.) 93.0
Average 3.78 91.8
( 1) Calculated: Sum of Sweco oversize and DSM oversize as a percentage of dry mill feed.
(Z) Average for poweT (last two readings)': 3. 78 kwhr/st.
(3) Sample run.
(4) Omitted from average.
Mill
Discharge
Solids
Ofo
6Z
63
64
63
66
66
66
65
" 0 r 0 ,
> 0 0 .,
" :1: 0 0 r
0 ,
"' z m .,
"' m ., m > "' " :1:
z .. -1 ::; c ;;:
> I "'
,,
L...-·....___ r.-----·-,_._.. ,. ' -----._,
r -.,.._.~,..,
'--··
EXHIDIT 2
Grinding Test 2 --continued
Procedure: Samples were wet screened on a 325M screen,
screened using a Ro-Tap for 30 min.
, .. -... .-.. ··: , __ . . '1 .__. --·. -o·-~--~
~
products dried, and the +325M material dry
Screen Size Analrsis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen Circulating
Test Product Mill Discharge Oversize Oversize Undersize Load
Sample Time 1415 1430 1415 1430 1415 1430 1415 1430
Sample Weight, g: 1,058.8 1,206.6 669.3 979.0 915.6 1,106.8 888.1 932.3
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
~Trier} Mesh % % % % % fa % % %
Head (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 23.8 21.6 65.5 71.8 40.4 37.6 2.0 I. 7 43.4
-28 +35 6.8 6.4 2.5 1.6 8.4 9.9 5.3 4.3 8.1
-35 +65 13.5 13.3 4.2 3.6 8.8 12.0 17.2 16.6 9.4
-65 +100 9.4 10.2 3.2 3.0 4.7 7.6 13.6 12.9 5.7
-100 +200 11.9 13.4 5.0 5.0 7.3 10.3 17.6 17.0 8.3
-200 +325 4.2 5.9 3.0 2.1 1.6 4.7 7.0 6.3 3.1
-325 30.4 29.2 16.6 12.9 28.8 17.9 37.3 41.2 22.0
(')
0
I""
0
::0 :p
0
0
(J)
(')
:I:
0
0 r
0
'TI
:!:
2
m
(J)
::0 m
(J) m :p
::0
(')
:I:
-z
(J)
-1
~ c
-1 m
1.. .. --
Grinding Test 3
Mill-
Bearing
Running Disc Meter Oil
Clock Time Revolutions Reading Temp.
Time~ sec/rev ~--"F __
1050 0 5 .o 13, 045 93
1135 45 4.5
lZOO 70 4.4 99
1207 77
1230 77
1300 107 4.9 109
1330 137 4.8 108
1400 167 4.9 110
1430 197 4.7 111
1445 ZlZ 4.8 13,085 112
1500 Z4Z
Average
---·
EXHIBIT Z
Date:
Feed Rate, stph:
Ore:
Ball Charge:
-1-1/Z in. +1 in. Balls, lb:
-Z in. +1-1/2 in. Balls, lb:
3 in. Balls, lb:
DSM Screen, in. width:
DSM Screen Openings, mm:
Measured Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw:
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill}, kw:
June 15, 1978
3.0
Run-of-mine
Total: 301.8 lb, Zo/o mill volume
114.5
151.3
36.0
12
1.27
2.06
0.6
Ore Feed Rate {as received}(!) Mill SWeco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen
-4 in. -6 in. -10 in. Discharge Oversize Overflow Underflow
-1-1/Z in. +1-1/Z in, +4 in. +6 in. Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solid8
Mill Water
Meter Rate
1b/hr lb/hr lb/hr 1b/br ~ lb/hr _%_ lb/hr _%_ lb/hr ~ lb/hr %(Z) lb/hr
918 570 174
918 570 174
4,350 918 570 174 65 13,631 68 857 70 6,237 58 5, 090 105 3,350
9!8 570 174
918 570 174
3,435 918 570 174 65 10,530 63 808 73 3, 679 55 4,430 106 3,366
4,815 918 570 174 66 11,642 64 878 7Z 5,508 61 5,408 104 3, 303
4,Z75 918 570 174 67 11,095 58 639 73 5,059 61 5,545 104 3, 303
4,590 918 570 174 67 11, 156 65 761 7Z 5,573 61 4,804 103 3,271
5,040 918 570 174 67 15, 135 67 1,010 71 6,646 6Z 5,69Z 104 3, 303
:ill. 570 .!1!
4,417 918 570 174 66 12,198 64 826 n 5,450 60 5,16Z 104 3, 316
' ___ . .,;
Mill
Load
Volume
__ %_,
Z5
Remarks
Start mill.
Shutdown, rock jammed in feeder.
Start mill.
Sample.
Sample.
Shut down ..
(1) Moisture: -1-1/Z in., Z.80f0; -4 io. +l-1/Z in., 1.0%; -6 in. +4 in., O.So/o, -10 in. +6 in •• 0.7%. Average dry ore feed rate: -1-1/Z in., 4,293.81b/hr, -4 in. +1-l/Z in •• 908.8lb/hr; -6 in. +4 in., 565.4
lb/hr; -10 in. t6 in., 17Z. 8 lb/hr; total, 5, 940.8 lb/hr, 2. 970 dry stph. Mill volume end of test: Z5o/o.
(Z) Auxilliary water line used--measured twice, averaged, and added as percentage of regular water meter.
Feed Rate, stph dry:
Ball Charge:
Corrected Mill Powe:r Tare (empty mill), kw:
Instantaneous Instantaneous Corrected
Z. 970 stph dry
301.8 lb, Z% of m..ill volwne
0.6
Power Circulating Mill
Running Disc Gross Power Power Consum;etion Load Discharge
Clock Time Revolutions (meter reading} (!rom input-output curve) Gross
~ ~ seclrev kwhr kwbr kwhr/st
1050 0 5. 0 10,36 8.Z6 2.78
1135 45 4.5 11.5Z 9.Z4 3.11
!ZOO 70 4.4 11.78 9.45 3.18
1207 77
1230 77
1300 107 4.9 10.58 8.43 2.84
1330 137 4.8 10. so s.62 Z.90
1400 167 4.9 10.58 8.43 Z.84
143o(3l 197 4.7 11.03 8.82 2.97
1445<3> ZlZ 4. 8 10.80 8.62 2.90
1500 Z4Z
Average
{ 1) Calculated: Sum of SWeco oversize and DSM oversize as a percentage of dry mill feed.
(Z) Average for power (last four readings): Z.. 70 kwhr/st.
(3) Sample run.
(4) Omitted !rom average.
Net Weight 0/o Solids
kwhr/st of Feed( I) ?b
Z.58
Z.91 11~:o<4l Z.98 65
Z.64(Z) 88.0 65
z. 70 99.0 66
2.64(2) 96.0 67
z.n(2) 101.0 67
z. 7o<2l 114.0 67
2.70 99.6
Remarks
Rock jammed io feeder.
n 0 r 0
"' ~ 0
0
~ n % 0 0 r
" z m " "' m .. m ~
"' n "'
r t__ t-•···-··--·.· .. ....._.__;
EXHIBIT 2
Grindi~g Test 3
Procedure: Samples were wet screened on a 325M screen,
screened using a Ro-Tap for 30 min.
r • ........ 1
;............., •.. 1
-J
products dried, and the +325M material dry
Screen Size Analysis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen Circulating
Test Product Mill Dischar~e Oversize Oversize Undersize Load
Sample Time 1430 1445 1430 1445 1430 1445 1430 1445
Sample Weight, g: 1,174.9 1,310.3 1,365.7 1,223.1 1, 183.4 1,245.5 850.1 962.4
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(Tyler) Mesh o/o % o/o o/o % o/o % o/o o/o
Head (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 27.8 25.1 65.0 67.5 47.4 33.3 2.4 I. 9 43.7
-28 +35 6.5 7.1 1.8 2.0 9.1 7.9 5.7 5.0 7.6
-35 +65 12.8 14.6 3.7 4.0 12.4 13.2 18. 1 21.0 11.7
-65 +100 9.2 9.0 3.1 3.4 6.5 8.5 14.8 16.0 7.0
-100 +200 11.4 13.5 5.4 5.5 8.9 9.9 15.6 13.5 8.9
-200 +325 4.8 3.4 3.4 3.3 1.6 3.3 5.9 4.5 2.5
-325 27.5 27.3 17.6 14.3 14.1 23.9 37.5 38.1 18.6
(")
0
' 0
::0
)>
0
0
en
(")
:J:
0
0
'
0 ...
s: z m en
::0
m en m
)>
::0
(")
:J:
z en
-1
::::;
c
-1 m
> I
00
r L __ c..:.:::
Grinding Test 4
r ... ....__
Date:
Feed Rate. stph:
Ore:
... ,..,
EXHIBIT Z
June 16, 1978
z.s
Crushed
Ball Charge:
-1-1/Z in. +1 in. Balls, lb:
Total: 301.8lb, Z% mill volum.e
114.5
Clock
~
1010
1030
1100
1130
!ZOO
1Zl5
1Z18
1Z30
1300
13ZO
1330
1400
1415
1500
Average
Running
Time
~
zo
50
80
110
1ZS
1<!'5
!37
167
187
197
ZZ7
Z4Z
Z57
Disc
Revolutions
sec/rev
6.6
6.3
5.9
5.9
6.0
6.0
s. 8
5. 7
s. 7
Meter
Reading
watt-hr
13,094
13 ,!Z8
Mill-Bearing
Oll Temp.
'F
96
97
99
99
100
100
lOZ
104
104
-Z in. +1-1/Z in. Ealls, lb:
3 in. Balls, lb:
DSM Screen, in. width:
DSM Screen Openings, rnm:
Measured Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw:
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw:
Ore Feed Rate
(as received)(!)
-3 in.,
1b/hr
5,130
5, 350
4,995
4, 770
5,4Z3
4,8Z6
4,635
6, 793
5,Z40
Mill Discharge
Solids Solids
J_ ..!2fl:!_
63 7,598
6Z 8, 091
65 1Z,519
6Z 5,69Z
65 6, 786
65 6, 7Z8
64 6, 797
63 6, 010
64 7,5Z8
Sweeo Screen
Oversize
Solids Solids
J_ lb/hr
67 36Z
64 418
66 535
6Z Z88
6Z 3Z6
65 449
6Z Z60
64 Z30
64 359
151.3
36.0
1Z
l.Z7
z.o6
0.6
DSM Screen
Overflow
Solids Solids
J_ lb/hr
74 1,931
7Z Z,398
70 3, 717
71 Z, 077
71 1, 885
69 Z,Z98
7Z 1,134
70 819
71 Z,03Z
(I) Moisture: -3 in., 4.3o/o. Average dry ore feed rate: -3 in., 5, 015 lb/hr, Z. 508 dry atph. Mill volume end oi test: 15%.
(Z) Auxilliary water line used --measured twice, averaged, and added as percentage of regular water rn.eter.
(3) 55-gal drum timed saxnple.
Feed Rate. stph: z.so8
DSM Screen
Underflow
Solids Solids
J_ lb/hr
61 5,Z43
60 4,48Z
61 3, 953
58 3,628
60 4,4Z8
60 4, 316(3)
59 4,806
60 4,617
59 4,3Z8
60 4,4ZZ
Ball Charge: 301 .. 8lb, 2"/o of mill volume
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw: 0.6
Instantaneous Instantaneous Corrected Power
Running Disc Gross Power Power Consum.:etion
Clock Time Revolo.tions (meter reading) (from input-output curve} Gross Net
~ ~ sec/rev kwbr kwbr kwhr/st kwhr/st
1010
1030 zo 6.6 7.85 6.00 Z.39 Z.lS
1100 50 6. 3 8.Z3 6.35 z. 53 Z.Z9
1130 80 5.9 8. 78 6.87 z. 74 Z.50
1200 llO 5.9 8. 78 6.87 Z.74 Z.50
1Zl5 1Z5
IZ30 137 6.0 8.64 6. 73 Z.68 Z.44
1300 167 6.0 8.64 6. 73 Z.68 Z.44
13ZO 187
1330 197 5.8 8.93 7.00 z. 79 z.55(Zl
14oo(3l ZZ7 5. 7 9.09 7.13 Z.84 Z.6o(Z)
1415(3) Z4Z 5. 7 9.09 7.13 Z.84 Z.6o(Z)
Average z.58
(1) Calculated: Sum. of Sweco oversize and DSM oveTsize as a percentage of dry mill feed.
(2) Average for power (last three readings): Z .. SS kwhr/at. (3) Sample run.
(4} Omitted from average.
Circulating
Load
Weight o/0
of Feed( I)
so.o(4l
81.o(4l
48.0
39.0
54.0
29.0
~
36.8
.,
-... -J.
Mill Water
Meter Rate ~ lb/br
90 z, 858
87 z, 763 sz Z,604
80 2,540
80 Z, 540
80 Z,540
79 Z, 509
79 Z,509
79 Z,509
BZ Z,597
Mill
Discharge
Solids
_.1L_
63
6Z
65
Mill
Load
Volume
_%_
15
Remarks
Remarks
Start mill ..
Feed off (feed belt jazmned}.
Start mill ..
Scunple.
Saxnp1e.
Feed belt jammed ..
6Z
65
65
64
63
n
0 r 0 ~ ..
" 0
n X 0 0 r
~
" i ::: ,.
m p
> ,.
n X
r"" ... . . ............... ·-·-~-
, ___ _ , ___ _ ,____, , __ _
EXHIBIT 2
Grinding Test 4 --continued
Procedure: Samples were wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried,
screened using a Ro-Tap for 30 min.
Screen Size Analysis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen
Test Product Mill Discharge Oversize Oversize
Sample Time 1140 1415 1400 1415 1400 1415
Sample Weight, g: I, 139.4 886.7 715.4 726.2 1,152.9 1,020.0
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
{Tyler~ Mesh o/o o/o o/o o/o o/o o/o
Head (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 15.3 13. 1 86.5 91.8 39.1 43.1
-28 +35 5.8 5.2 0.3 0.3 8.9 7.6
-35 +65 17.8 17.9 0.9 0.5 14,.9 12.7
-65 +100 11.1 ll.8 0.7 0.3 6.8 6.3
-100 +ZOO 15.8 16.7 1. 6 0.7 8.8 8.9
-200 +325 7.7 6.4 0.9 0.4 3.3 4.1
-325 26.5 28.9 9.1 6.0 18.2 17.3
and the +325M material dry
DSM Screen Circulating
Undersize Load
1400 1415
763.8 769.4
Weight Weight Weight
o/o o/o o/o
100.0 100.0 100.0
2.7 2.7 55.5
4.9 4.6 5.9
18.6 18.6 9.9
12.5 13.3 4.7
18.6 19. 1 6.6
8.1 6.3 2.8
34.6 35.4 14.6
(')
0 r
0
:u
)> c
0
(II
(')
:r
0
0
r
0 ,
== z m
(II
::u m
(II m
)>
::u
(')
:r
z
(II
-1
::::j
c
-1 m
> I ....
0
Grinding Test 5
Running
Clock Time
~~
0840
0910
0930
1000
1030
1035
1040
1100
1130
1155
1200
1230
1300
1330
1345
1400
1430
1445
1500
1510
1513
1522
1529
1536
1537
Average
0
30
50
80
110
115
115
135
165
190
195
225
255
285
300
315
345
360
375
380
388
397
404
411
412
Disc
Revolutions
sec/rev
6.7
6.3
6.2
6.5
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.7
6.6
6.3
6.5
6. 1
6. 1
6.0
5.7
f'·'· ..... ,,
~
Mill-
Bearing
Meter Oil
Reading Temp.
~ __ ._F __
13, 136
13, 184
90
91
92
91
94
96
97
100
103
104
104
104
105
106
107
EXHIBIT Z
Date:
Feed Rate, stph:
Ore:
June 19, 1978 z.o
Crushed
-..----·
Ball Charge:
-1-1/Z in. Balls, lb:
Total301.8 lb, Z'l'o mill volume
114.5
-2 in. +1-1/2 in. Balls, 1b: 151.3
3 in. Balls, lb: 36.0
DSM Screen,. in. width: 12
DSM Screen Openings, rw:n: 1.27
Measured Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw: 2.06
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw: 0.6
Ore Feed Rate Mill Sweco Screen DSM Screen
(as received)(!) Discharge Oversize Overflow
-3 in, Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids
----'l:::b"'-/h=r=----___!g_ lb/hr ___!g_ lb/hr ___!g_ lb/hr
3,623
3,960
3,803
4,230
4,298
4,320
3,533
4,016
4,005
3,645
4,005
4,140
3, 713
4,028
3,690
3,934
67
66
56
66
66
63
62
66
68
63
64
63
62
63
64
8, 744
6,663
3,578
4,990
5,049
3,856
3,894
4,693
9,058
4,139
4, 781
4,820
4, 018
4,139
5,173
48
45
15
38
42
37
27
29
34
32
34
33
38
36
35
356
324
68
182
239
zoo
101
Ill
173
134
143
193
182
151
183
67
70
70
75
72
75
73
70
68
71
n
69
71
70
71
3,558
2,079
347
346
729
405
394
851
3,672
250
238
598
423
1, 323
1,087
DSM Screen
Underflow
Solids Solids
J_ lb/hr
60
60
59
62
62
61
58
61
64
59
57
59
56
56
59
2,970
4,077
3,452
4,241
4,101
3,870
3,445
3,870
3,744
3,452
3, 104
3,505
2,696
2,696
3,516
Mill Water
Mill
Load
Meter Rate Volume
J_ lb/hr __ 'li_o_
75
71
68
66
68
69
69
64
68
61
68
69
69
69
69
68
2,382
2,255
Z, 159
2,096
z, 159
2, 191
z. 191
2,032
2, 159
1,937
2,159
2, 191
2, 191
z. 191
z. 191
2, 165
7
13
15
15
(1) Moisture: -3 in., 2.0'/o. Average dry ore feed rate: -3 in., 3,855lb/hr, 1.9Z8 dry stph. Millvolum.e end of test: 15o/o.
Remarks
Start mill.
Shut down --out of feed,
Start mill.
Sample.
Sample.
Sample.
Sample,
Shut down.
Collecting mill discharge sample.
Second barrel.
Third barrel.
Hopper went empty.
Shut down mill.
" 0 .-0 ..
~ 0
0 .. " "' 0 0 .-
0
~
3: i m .. .. m ::: ~
" " "' i .. _, _,
c _,
m
r.···· ~-
EXHmiT z
~rinding TestS ...... continued
Feed Rate, atph {dry): l.9Z8
Ball Charge:
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill}. kw:
301.8 1b, Z% of mill charge
0.6
Running Disc
Clock Tilne Revolutions
~ ~ seclrev
0840 0
0910 30 6.7
0930 so 6.3
1000 80 6.Z
1030 110 6.s
1035 115
llOO 135 6.5
ll30 16S 6.6
ll55 190
12.00 195 6.7
1Z30 ZZ5 6.7
1300 Z5S 6.6
1330 Z8S 6.3
1345(3) 300 6.5
l4oo(3J 31S 6.1
1430 345 6.1
144513) 360 6.0
lsoo!3l 375 5.7
1510 38S
1513 388
l5ZZ 397
15Z9 404
1536 411
1537 4lZ
Average
Instantaneous
Gross Power
(meter reading)
kwhr
7. 73
8.Z3
8.36
7.97
7.97
7.85
7. 73
7.73
7.85
8.2.3
7.97
8.50
8.50
8.64
9.09
Instantaneous
Corrected Power
(from input-output curve)
kwbr
5.89
6.35
6.47
6.10
6.10
6.00
5. 89
5.89
6.00
6.35
6.10
6.60
6.60
6.73
7.13
Power
Consumption
Gross Net
kwhr/st kwhr/st
3.05 2..74
3.Z9 Z.98
3.36 3.04
3.16 2..85
3.16 Z.85
3.11 Z.80
3.05 Z.74
3.05 Z.74
3.11 2..80
3.2.9 2..98
3.16 Z.8S
3.42. 3.u!Zl
3.42. 3,11{2.)
3.49 3.18(2.)
3.70 3.37
3.13
(1) Calculated: Sum of Sweco oversize and DSM oversize as a percentage of dry mUl feed.
(2.) Average for power (three readings, omitted reading at !,500 from. average): 3.13 kwhr/st.
{3) Sample run.
(4) Omitted from average.
Circulating
Load
Weight !fo
of Feed{l)
1Z.0{4)
Z3.o(4J
14.0
14.0
Z4.0
96.oi4J
11.0
10.0
19.0
16.0
37_,0
18.0
Mill
Discharge
Solids
%
67
66
56
66
66
63
62.
66
68
63
64
63
62.
63
Procedure: Sam.ples were wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried, and the +325M material dry screened using a Ro-Tap for 30 min,.
Screen Size Anal sis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen
Test Product Mill Discharge Oversize Oversize
Sam.ple Time 1345 1400 1445 1500 134S 1400 1445 1SOO 134S 1400 1445 1500
Sample Weight, g: 1, 058.6 1,062..1 911.3 859.1 442..5 300.3 Z8Z.Z 381.8 1,065.9 713.5 478.8 92.0.6
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(Tyler) Mesh __ % _ _ %_ __ '!o_ __ % _ __L __L __L __L _ %_ _% _ _% _ _ % _
Head (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 12.0 11.5 IO.Z 10.8 78.4 82.9 81.4 87.5 67.0 54.5 51.9 32.0
-28 +35 3.7 3.7 Z.1 Z.9 l.S 0.8 1.0 0.4 s.o 4.6 4.5 3.9
-35 +65 15.3 16.3 12..9 13.4 4.1 1.9 3.0 1.1 6.Z 7.4 6.9 10.9
-65 +100 12.3 13.4 12..8 12.7 2..4 1.2 1.9 0.8 3.4 5.2 5.2. 9.1
-100 +ZOO 19.1 18.5 21.3 zo.6 4.1 2..7 3.7 1.6 5.3 s.z 9.3 14.2
-ZOO t3Z5 8.0 6.6 9.0 8.6 1.1 1.0 1.1 l.Z 1.6 Z.B 4.0 5.3
-32S 29.6 30.0 31.1 31.0 8.4 9.5 7.9 7.4 u.s !7.3 18.2 2.4.6
. _______ ;
Remarks
Ran out of ore,.
Check mill volume.
0 0 ... 0
" ,.
" 0
" 0
:1:
0
0 ... Check ml1l load level. ~ Start filling No,. I mill discharge sa:mple barrel.
Start filling No .. Z mill discharge sample barrel .. " Start filling No,. 3 mill discharge sample barrel. z m
End fUling No. 3 mill discharge sample barrel,. ..
" End of test. m .. m ,.
" 0
:1:
DSM Screen Circulating
Underflow Load
134S 1400 1445 1500
817.4 757.0 743.7 787.8
Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
__L __ % _ __L __L _1L_
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.8 z.o 1.9 1.6 58.1
3.1 3.1 Z.8 2.3 3.7
16.8 16.3 15.8 14.Z 6.7
14.7 14.6 14.2 14.5 4.8
2.0.5 20.5 21.7 21.8 8.0 }>
8.1 8.4 7.4 7.4 2.9 :..
35.0 35.1 36.2. 38.Z 15.8 "'
'---
Grinding Test 6
Mill-
Bearing
Running Disc Meter Oil
Clock Time Revolutions Reading Temp ..
Time ~ sec/rev watt-hr __ ._F __
0820
0925 0
0930 5 6.8 13,195 82
1000 35 5.9 80
1030 65 5.3 82
l!OO 95 s.z 83
1135 130 s.z 84
!ZOO 155 5.2 87
1230 185 5.1 88
1245 zoo 5.1 88
!300 ZlS 5.0 89
1330 245 5.0 12,236 9Z
1337 zsz
Average
Date:
Feed Rate, stph:
Ore:
Ball Charge:
-1-1/2 in. +1 in. Balls, 1b:
-Z in. +1-1/Z in. Balls, lb:
3 in. Balls, lb:
DSM Screen, in. width:
DSM. Screen Openings, rnm:
\'"···········:
'----'
EXHlBIT 2
June 20, 1978
2.5
Run-of-mine
Total: 301.8 lb, Z% mill volum.e
114.5
151.3
36.0
12
1.27
Measured Mill Power Tare {empty mill), kw: 2.06
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty mill), kw: 0.6
Ore Feed Rate {as received]( I) Sweco Screen DSM Screen
-4 in. -6 in. -10 in .. Mill Discharg:e Oversize Overflow
-1-1/2 in. +1-1/2 in. +4 in. -6 in. Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids Solids
1b{!!r lb£hr 1b£hr lb£hr _J,_ 1b/hr _J,_ 1b{hr _J,_ 1b£hr
768 474 219
768 474 Zl9 66 11,286 60 66Z 71 4,090
3, 713 768 474 219 66 9, 742 54 535 68 4,896
3,825 768 474 219 67 10,492 60 608 68 4,651
3,510 768 474 219 66 7,960 59 597 68 3, 733
3, 758 768 474 219 68 10,588 57 487 68 4, 651
3,420 768 474 219 68 10,037 55 545 69 3,974
3,420 768 474 Zl9 67 9,950 sz 714 68 4,ZZ3
3,600 768 474 Zl9 67 11,759 62 781 68 6,487
768 474 Z19 67 8,924 60 1,337 68 4,039
3,607 768 474 219 67 10,08Z 58 696 68 4,527
DSM Screen Mill
Underflow Mill Water Load
Solids Solids Meter Rate Volume
..JL_ lb£hr _J,_ 1M!!: .--J..__ Remarks
--(Grind out)--Start mill.
Start feed.,
80 2,540
61 5, 737 85 2,699
61 3,486 84 2,668
61 4,255 85 2,699
61 4,255 84 2,668 zs
60 3,699 85 2,699
60 4,104 89 Z,8Z6
59 4,275 89 Z,8Z6 Sample.
6Z 3, 627 85 2,699 Sample.
60 3, 780 88 z. 795
Z7 Shut down.
61 4,135 85 z, 712
(I) Moisture: -1-1/2 in .. , Z.3%; -4 in. +1-1/Z in., l.Oo/o; -6 in. +4 in., O.So/o; -10 in. +6 in., 0.7o/o. Average dry ore feed rate; -1-1{2 in., 3,524lb/hr; -4 in. +1-1/2 in., 760.3 lb/hr; -6 in. +4 in., 470.Z
lb/hr; -10 in. +6 in., 217.5 lb/hr; Total: 4, 972 lb{hr; 2.486 dry stph. Mill volume end of test: Z7o/o.
Feed Rate, stph (dry): Z.486
Ball Charge: 301.8 lb, 2% of mill volum.e
Corrected Mill Power Tare (empty tn.ill), kw: 0.6
Instantaneous Instantaneous Corrected Power
Running Disc Grose Power Power Consum.:e:tion
Clock Time Revolutions (meter reading} (from input-output c.urve) Gross Net
~ ~ seclrev kwhr kwbr kwhr/st kwhr/st
0820
0925
0930 6.8 7.62 5.80 2.33 Z.09
1000 35 5.9 8. 78 6.87 2.76 2.52
1030 65 5.3 9. 78 7.78 3.13 Z.9Z
1100 95 5.2 9.97 7.92 3.18 Z.94
l!35 130 s.z 9.97 7.92 3.18 2.94
1200 155 s.z 9.97 7.92 3.18 2.94
1Z30 185 5.1 10.16 8.09 3.Z5 3.01
1245(3) 200 5.1 10.16 8.09 3.25 3.01
1300(3) ZlS 5.0 10.36 8.26 3.32 3. o8<Zl
1330 245 4.0 10.36 8.26 3.32 3.o8!2l
1337 zsz
Average 3.08
(l) Calculated: Sum of Sweco oversize and DSM oversize as a percentage of dry mill feed.
(Z) Average :for power (two readings): 3.08 kwhr/st.
(3) Sample run.
Circulating
Load
Weight%
of Feed(1)
105.0
99.0
87.0
98.0
93.0
101.0
144.0
103.9
Mill
Discharge
Solids
"' Remarks
Grind out.
Start feed.
66
66
67
66
68
68
67
67
67
End af test.
" 0 ... ~ > 0 0 .. " "' 0 0 r
0 ~
"' z m " ~ m " m ~ ~ n
"'
;,.-_ __ L___ -..... ,
;____.j ~ __ ,
EXHIBIT 2
Grinding Test 6 --continued
(")
0 Procedure: Samples were wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried, and the +325M material dry • 0 screened using a Ro-Tap for 30 min. :u
)>
0
Screen Size Analrsis 0
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen Circulating (J)
(")
Total Product Mill Dis char~e Oversize Oversize Undersize Load :X
0
0 • Sample Time 1245 1300 1245 1300 1245 1300 1245 1300 0
Sample Weight, g: 1,258.8 1,237.7 673.8 642.6 1,361.9 1,079.3 832.1 918.1 ....
~
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight z
m
(Tyler) Mesh % % % % % o/o % % % (J)
:u m
Head (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 en 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 m
)>
:u
+28 21.0 18.4 64.8 70.7 32.9 23.1 1.3 1.0 32.9 (")
:X
-28 +35 6o4 6.5 1.9 1.2 9.4 8.5 3.9 3.7 8.1 -z
-35 +65 13.9 15.1 3.8 2.7 12.8 14.3 16.5 16.7 12.2 (J)
-1
-65 +100 10.5 11.4 3.2 2.2 8.8 8.6 12.4 14.5 8.0 :j
-100 +200 13.3 14.2 5.4 5.0 11.8 14.2 20.3 18.5 12.0 c
-1
-ZOO +325 5.5 5.6 3.1 2.2 4.8 3.7 5.3 6.7 4.1 m
-325 29.4 28.8 17.8 16.0 19.5 27.6 40.3 38.9 22.7
Sediment Description Page 1 of 10
Sediment Description and Classification Background
U.S. Standard Sieves
Note that the same size mesh can be a differing sieve number depending on the Sieve manufacturer
(Tyler vs. ASTM)
~;~!~n~) II TYLER II ASTM-Ell II BS-410 II DIN-41881
I !liD II Mesh II No. II Mesh II mm I
5 II 2500 2500 0.005
10 II 1250 1250 0.010
15 II 800 800 0.015
20 625 625 0.020
22 0.022
25 500 500 0.025
28 0.028
32 0.032
36 0.036
38 400 400 400
40 0.040
45 325 325 350 0.045
50 I 0.050
53 270 270 300
56 0.056
63 250 230 240 0.063
71 0.071
75 200 200 200
80 0.080
I 90 170 170 170 0.090
100 I 0.100
106 150 140 150
112 0.112
125 115 I 120 II 120 0.125 I
140 II II 0.140 I
150 100 II 100 II 100 I I
II II II II
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm
/Jr-rAa.f~6f')T B, ~o
5112/2007
Sediment Description Page 2 of 10
160 II 0.160
180 II 80 80 85 0.180
200 II 0.200
212 II 65 70 72 I
250 60 60 60 0.250
280 I 0.280
300 48 50 52
315 I 0.315
355 42 45 44 0.355
400 0.400
425 35 40 36 I
450 0.450 I
500 32 35 30 I 0.500 I
560 II 0.560 I
600 28 30 25 II I
630 II 0.630 I
710 24 I 25 22 II 0.710 I
I 800 II 0.800 I
850 20 20 18 II
900 I 0.900
1000 16 18 16 1.0
1120 1.12
1180 14 16 14
1250 I 1.25
1400 12 I 14 I 12 1.4 I
1600 II 1.6
1700 10 II 12 10
1800 II 1.8
2000 9 10 8 2.0
2240 2.24
2360 8 8 7
2500 I 2.5
2800 I 7 I 7 6 2.8
3150 3.15
3350 6 6 I 5
3550 3.55
4000 5 5 4 II 4.0
4500 I I II 4.5
http :1/www. geology. sdsu.edu/ classes/ geol5 52/ seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
Sediment Description Page 3 of 10
l:=l =~=~~=~ :=:::;11~ =4 ~ll:==4====:ll~3=.s=UII= =s=.o===:ll
Sediment Classification based on Grain Size:
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
!sediment Name llniameter (mm) Sieve No. I
!cobble I greater than 7 5 mm
loravel 4.75 to 75 mm 4 I
I sand 0.075 to 4.75 mm 200 I
!Fines (silt and clay) less than 0.075 mm
USCS Division of Sands
Sediment Diameter Range I Passes through Sieve Retained on Sieve
Name (mm) No. No.
!coarse Sand II 2.0-4.8 II 4 II 10 I
!Medium Sand II 0.43-2.0 II 10 II 40 I
!Fine Sand II 0.075-0.43 II 40 II 200 I
http://www. geology. sdsu.edu/ classes/ geol5 52/ seddescription.htm 5112/2007
Sediment Description
2·1nches
1 Inch
1
2 1nch
3 --Inch 8
Number 4
Number 10
Number 200
Figure 4-3. Dry sieve analysis.
USCS Classification System
http://www. geology. sdsu.edu/ classes/ geol5 52/ seddescription.htm
Page 4 of 10
5112/2007
Sediment Description Page 5 of 10
UNIFJEO SOIL CLASS!FICA1ION SYSlEM
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DE.SCRIPliONS SYMBOLS
~g Well Gr~<Jc:led Grove Is,
L Clean (,rcve Is GW GravP.I -Sond Mixrur-e5,
Q Litile r1nEts 0 ~a: or· r;o
(j) > {...) c > (l iit I e Ql' Poo~ly Graded G~ovels, a:· v'i .... ·-a: no F" i11esJ GP Grave I -Sar,d M i xt ure5, ·-.....J -0•-t/) w o+-t/l L Iti le or no Fines > IV 0 4 ::t::C:.»t
0 oc Cc Si I ty .. n r,J ~.!> c;r ov~ I s With GM Gn:lvel s, __J Ooc) Grove J-Sorld-S i It Mixtures -c ..c __ z Fines oo I-+-
'.ll $0 {ADDreoi ODIe 0 ~.o GC C I oyey Grave Is., 5~ .Q"-F"tn~sl Grove 1 • Sof"ld-C 1 oy t,H ><'t ur-es Z•--==l!J..
~o <l.r a; Well Gr-oaea Sands, a: a; (/) sw Gr-ove I I y Sands, Oil:. l..Cl Clf!<:Jii SCr'KIS 0 L ir 1 1 e or no Fines w.J OWm: L!llt--n:-(..) (l) .> <Liiile Or"' Poor I y Grodi!d $QI1d$, -o;tO lt--~a:: no F i r;esl SP Gravelly Sands, OI Lfl -o·-u c::: 00.. ;/) L 1 ti I~ or r,o F tr,es c z I 0 <f. c,:"<t .r::. Ill co SM Silty Sorvd5 1 r-04-., ~and5 Wiih ..c-t--0 r i roes Sar,o -S iii ).,.1i >'Tures (J) ,... oZ
1... a 0 Q::-1... LAppr~c; i ab I~ ::i: I..L... sc CloyAy Sor.ds. 0 r i nes> Sand -Clay MTJ:1ures. :.:;:
1/) Jno~go~io Si Its & Very Fine
>-T-0 ML Scna59 sr ITy or Clayey F"lne
<1,) -<t Sands, C. I OY€Y S i ItS > -l ·-In
Q; <;_I .:§-c ·-VI '0 -lo lnorgor. i o Cloys of' Low iO c .r: CL \Ftg 0 :ot-Medium P1osticity1
·-ill L~a,, Cloys ;::!t.:--~ V) :Jill
0,,1 r .?:a: -l Organic 5 r 1 1 s & Or"QQtiiC Vl<iJ ----l__J
0~ ill OL Silty Clays of Low
'#o P 1 as·r i <~ i, y :::tL
-4. ';-J norgarii <::: ~ i I i51 oc_
<._') Cl 1.11 0 MH rine w::r: :>-I.() :S.or.CI or Silty Soi Is, ..... +-Elastic Si Its zc ---l ·-c -o t..l Go W..c ·-.c
)-~ -lt-CH Inorgonro Clays of
<l) 0 UL High Pla~tioiiy, Foi Clay5 ··-ll) L 1/1 3"0 0 ::1: I-
---l ·-cv Oq;Jon l c G I crs. of Me<l i urn --ll.. OH Vl ),.!" 10 High P as-tlclty,
Organic S iIi s
Hignly Or{Janic Solis PT P8ot Clod Oiil(')r
Highly Organic Soi Is
Visual logging of sediments entails estimating percentages of gravels, sands and fines (silt and clays).
Practice and the use of the Geotechnical Gage will increase your confidence and ability in visually
logging sediments.
Read: Visual Exam Test
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
Sediment Description Page 6 of 10
Read: Field Identification Guidelines
Ultimately, sediment samples may undergo grain size analysis through sieves. Graphing the cumulative
weight percent retained/passing by sieve no. or grain size will result in the sediment grain-size
distribution curve. The grain-size distribution curve is used to quantitatively classify the sediment type
(your visual identification is a qualitative classification).
U.S. Standard Sieve
openings in inches
100 (') .....
....:....
90
80
E -~ 70
~ 60 .... Q)
.!§ 50 -c ~ 40 rf.
30
20
10
............
Read: Grain Size Distribution Measurement
Grain Size Distribution Curve
U.S. Standard Sieve numbers
(') "<I' co coo "<I' co o o o ooo 8 ~ 8 R ..-_. _. C\1 M ~ \0<0,.._ T"'"" ..... C\1 C\1 Hydrometer
'\
....... .......
I" _,.Poorly sorted
.......... /
.,wen sorted
......._
....... v
\.
" " 1'--.. ........ ~00 50 10 5 1.0 0.05 0.01 0.005
Silt or Clay
0
10
20
E
30 -~
>.
40 ~ ~
50 ~ 0
60 i ~ 70 a.
80
90
1 0.00~0
The grain-size distribution curve is used with the USCS classification chart to classify the sediment
type. Other measures used to describe the sediment are the sorting or gradation of the sediment. As can
be seen in the above chart, a well-sorted sediment has a small range of sediment grain sizes while a
poorly sorted sediment has a large range of sediment grain sizes. In the USCS classification scheme, the
gradation of the sediment is used instead of the sorting. A well-graded sediment has a large range of
grain sizes while a poorly or uniformly graded sediment has a small range of grain sizes.
Figure 4-6. Well-graded soil.
POORLY SORTED SEDIMENT= WELL GRADED SEDIMENT
http://www. geology. sdsu. edu/ classes/ geol5 52/ seddescription.htm 5112/2007
Sediment Description Page 7 of 10
Figure 4-7. Uniformly graded soil.
WELL-SORTED SEDIMENT= POORLY OR UNIFORMLY GRADED SEDIMENT
Figure 4-8. Gap-graded soil.
After sieve analysis, the data are tabulated showing the weight of sediment retained on each sieve. The
cumulative weight retained is calculated starting from the largest sieve size and adding subsequent
sediment weights from the smaller size sieves (see table below). The percent retained is calculated from
the weight retained and the total weight of the sample. [Don't get confused by the graph -it is individual
percent retained in Column 16 and cumulative percent passing in Column 17]. The cumulative percent
passing in Column 17 of the table below is calculated by sequentially subtracting percent retained from
100 %. In table below, cumulative percent passing 1/4 inch sieve = 100 -16 = 84; cumulative percent
passing #4 sieve= 84-5.2 = 78.8; etc.
http://www. geology. sdsu.edu/ classes/ geol5 52/ seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
Sediment Description Page 8 of 10
SIEVE ANALYSIS DATA 1. DATE STARTED
22 FEB 91
2 PROJECT l. EXCAVATION 4. DATE COMPlETED
BRAVO AIRFIELD 1..00 28 FEB 91
5. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION 6. SAMPlE NUMBER
lA
LIGliT BROliN SA~DY SOIL 1 PREWASH[.() ,,6M-I
XX J YES JNO
8 Ofl:lGINAl SAMPI..E Wf!GH f 9. + •lOO 'SAMPlE WEIGhT 10 -1200 SAMPlE WEIGHT
2~59 2359 100
11. 12. 13. 14 IS 16 17 I1EVE W£fGHT OF WEIGHT OJ= WEIGHT CUMULATIVE P~RCENT ~ERCENT
SIZE SIEVE SIEVE+ RETAINED WEIGHT tUlAIN~O PAlliNG SAMP'LE RETA.IN(O
1% 202
1 231
~ 210 210 0 0 0 100.0
.;; 230 624 394 394 16.0 84.0
#4 205 332 127 521 5.2 78.8
#8 225 691 466 987 19.0 59.8
#20 215 612 397 1384 16.2 43.6
#60 235 581 346 17YJ 14.1 29.5
#100 250 612 362 2092 14.7 14.8
#200 260 515 255 2347 1('. 4 4.4
18. TOTAL W[ICHT RETAINED IN SICVf:S !"-'fltC~l4J 19 E."-AOR ff liJ
' 2347
20 WEIGHT SrtVEO THROUGH 1200 ;~_.,,,,.~"') 2459-2457 = 2 270-260 10
ll W6.SH1NG LOSS Jlft·lf • 1~}J
2459-(2359+100) 0
22 TOT At W[lGt-~T P.ASSf~ 1'200 f/~ .. IC':I
10+100 110
23. TOTAL W£f{i.HT OF-HIA(liONS 111 • m 2457
14. REMARKS 1~ ER~OR ll't>'t~"''}
uses 51' {RROR (I!} X 100 •
PEA(! NT ·G .-fl..1.._ ORIGINA~ WT Ill
P[R([Nl.l~
P£RCENT·f~ ~X 100 = .08
2~ Tf(t-l"tCIAN ]1 (0'.4.PUTE0 8¥ ~~ • .,~~ .. ,.,,fl 18 (~f(l!:£0 ay !~out...-... ;
r~PVZ. r~drv-z-~~s~
00 Form 1206, DEC 86
Figure 4-4. Data sheet, example of dry sieve analysis.
The cumulative percent passing is plotted on the grain-size distribution graph. The percentage passing
the No.4 and 200 sieves is used to classify the sediments as gravels (G), sands (S) or fines (must use
plasiticity index to differentiate between silts and clays).
http://www. geology. sdsu.edul classes/ geol5 52/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
Sediment Description
<XJ N
• ~ a : : : : : : : ! ;
"': .. .. ~~~~~+4~++4-~~~~-;:
.. ~~~+4~+4~r+~~++4-r+;_,~
II II
Figure 4-5. Grain-size distribution curve from sieve analysis.
j . 0
! s ' i 0 ~ , •
Page 9 of 10
The grain-size distribution graph is used to read off the grain size at which 10% of the sample passed
(DID), 30% of the sample passed (D3o) and 60% ofthe sample passed (D6o). These numbers are used to
calculate several coefficients:
Hazen's effective size, DID, which will be used to estimate permeability
Uniformity Coefficient, Cu = D6o/DID
In the above graph,
http://www. geology. sdsu.edu/ classes/ geol5 52/ seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
Sediment Description Page 1 0 of 1 0
Dao .. 2.4 mm and D10 0.13 mm
then Cu = 2.4!0.13 == 18.5
The uniformity coefficient is used to judge gradation.
Coefficient of Curvature, Cc
In the above graph,
D3o = 0.3 mm
. (0.3)2
and Cc = (Z.4)(0.lS) = .29
In the graph below, well-graded soils (GW and SW) are long curves spanning a wide range of sizes with
a constant or gently varying slope. Uniformly graded soils (SP) are steeply sloping curves spanning a
narrow range of sizes. For a gap-graded soil (GP), the curve flattens out in the area of the grain-size
deficiency or gap.
The USCS criteria for well-graded gravels (GW) and sands (SW) are:
1. Less than 5% finer than No. 200 sieve
2. Uniformity coefficient greater than 4
3. Coefficient of curvature between 1 and 3
If Criterion 1 is met, but not Criteria 2 and 3, the gravels are gap-graded or uniform gravels (GP) or
sands (SP)
If you are interested in more information: Gradation and Bearing Capacity
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
-] .
~EPA
J
• I . J
J
J
J
-J
. I J
I ' J
.J
Ll
I 1
~:]
L]
J
, ... I"' • v I • - ---
United States Office of Research and EP AI600/R-94/168b
Environmental Protection Development September 1994
Agency . Washington DC 20460
The Hydrologic
Evaluation of
Landfill Performanc!e
(HELP) Model
Engineering
Documentation for
Version 3
0.60
0.50
...J 0 ~ 0.40
~ 0.21
...: 0·'\' z w 0.30 !Z 0 0 a: w 0.20 i
0.10
0.00
SAND SANDY LOAM SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY
LOAM LOAM LOAM CLAY
Figure 2. Relation Among Moisture Retention Parameters and Soil Texture Class
are not specified, the program assumes values near the steady-state values (allowing no
long-term change in moisture storage) and runs a year of simulation to initialize the
moisture contents closer to steady state. The soil water contents at the end of this year
. are substituted as the initial values for the simulation period. The program then runs the
complete simulation, starting again from the beginning of the first year of data. The
results of the volumetric water content initialization period are not reported in the output.
3.3.2 Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Darcy's constant of proportionality governing flow through porous media is known
quantitatively as hydraulic conductivity or coefficient of permeability and qualitatively
as permeability. Hydraulic conductivity is a function of media properties, such as
particle size, void ratio, composition, fabric, degree of saturation, and the kinematic
viscosity of the fluid moving through the media. The HELP program uses the saturated
and unsaturated hydraulic conductivities of soil and waste layers to compute vertical
drainage, lateral drainage and soil liner percolation. The vapor diffusivity for
geomembranes is specified as a saturated hydraulic conductivity to compute leakage
through geomembranes by vapor diffusion.
13
]
]l
]
]
]
]
]
J
,]
I~
IJ
J.-~ :j
L,
L:
lj
J -:J
J,J
1~ .'. J
I
_l', l
I .....
lL ~~ II
TABLE 1. DEFAULT LOW DENSITY SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil Texture Class A fJ Saturated Total Field Wilting
Porosity Capacity Point Hydraulic
HELP USDA uses vol/vol vol/vol vol/vol Conductivity
em/sec
1 CoS SP 0.417 0.045 0.018 l.Oxlo-2
2 s sw 0.437 0.062 0.024 5.8x1Q-3
3 FS sw 0.457 0.083 0.033 3.1xl0-3
4 LS SM 0.437 0.105 0.047 1. 7x10-3
5 LFS SM 0.457 0.131 0.058 l.Oxl0-3
6 SL SM 0.453 0.190 0.085 7.2x104
7 FSL SM 0.473 0.222 0.104 5.2xl04
8 L ML 0.463 0.232 0.116 3.7x1Q-4
9 SiL ML 0.501 0.284 0.135 1.9x104
10 SCL sc 0.398 0.244 0.136 1.2x104
11 CL CL 0.464 0.310 0.187 6.4x1o-s
12 SiCL CL 0.471 0.342 0.210 4.2x1o-s
13 sc sc 0.430 0.321 0.221 3.3x1o-s
14 SiC CH 0.479 0.371 0.251 2.5x1o-s
15 c CH 0.475 0.378 0.251 2.5x1o-s
21 G GP 0.397 0.032 0.013 3.0x1Q-1
a -constant representing the effects of various
fluid constants and gravity, 21 cm3 I sec
cJ> -total porosity, vol/vol
er -residual volumetric water content, vol/vol
1/;b -bubbling pressure, em
f.. -pore-size distribution index, dimensionless
() .. 132-
D. '32..o
D-~c.,s
o.t~l
0.~3\
0 :zrt
().1~4
A more detailed explanation of Equation 11 can be found in Appendix A of the HELP
program Version 3 User's Guide and the cited references.
19
(1; /II /"
/'1'
""'
~
36 PERMEABILITY
ered that when well-graded mixtures of sand and gravel contained as little as ·
50Jo of fines (sizes smaller than a No. 200 sieve) high compactive efforts re-.··.
duced the effective porosities nearly to zero and the permeabilities to less than
0.01% of those at moderate densities. These tests explain one of the reasons
that blends of sand and gravel often used for drains are virtually useless as
drainage aggregates if they contain more than insignificant amounts of fines.
In the preceding paragraphs variations in the permeability of remolded ma-
terials caused by variable compaction were discussed. Any factor that densities
soils reduces permeability. Studies of the rate of consolidation of clay and peat
foundations are sometimes made by using initial coefficients of permeability
of compressible formations. While the consolidation process is going on in
foundations their permeabilities are becoming less. Generally, decreases in the
permeabilities of clay foundations are rather moderate, but they can be large in
highly compressible organic silts and clays and in peats. Modified calculation
methods utilizing the changing permeability are needed in the analysis of · •··
highly compressible foundations. Some typical variations in permeability
caused by consolidation are given in Fig. 2.10, a plot of consolidation pressure
versus permeability.
100,000
10,000
1000
100 u ., >. "' .. -10 '0 E ? u
I' ~ ~ :c J :iS 1 X 10-4 31 j )3o ~"C~ m "' -1-' ·' . .,
,!1 x Io-s E l
4cvo e-:;f' 0.01 ~
2 ~sf 1 X 10-7
I 1 X 10-5 I~ i I
0.1 1.0 ~ 1-1'5f
Consolidation pressure, T/sq ft
FIG. 2.10 Permeability versus consolidation pressure.
<
(2.1)
2.2 COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY 25
k = ~~ (2.2)
Darcy's discharge velocity multiplied by the entire· cross-sectional area, in-
cluding voids e and solids 1, gives the seepage quantity Q under a given hy-
draulic gradient i = !!.h/!!.1 or h/L. It is an imaginary velocity that does not
exist anywhere. The average seepage velocity Vs of a mass of water progressing
through the pore spaces of a soil is equal to the discharge velocity (vd = ki)
multiplied by (1 + e)le or the discharge velocity divided by the effective poros-
ity n,; hence permeability is related to seepage velocity by the expression
k = v.n.
i (2.3)
For any seepage condition in the laboratory or in the field in which the
seepage quantity, the area perpendicular to the direction of flow, and the hy-
draulic gradient are known the coefficient of permeability can be calculated.
Likewise, for any situation where the seepage v.:!locity is known at a point at
which the hydraulic gradient and soil porosity also are known, permeability can
be calculated.
Experimentally determined coefficients of permeability can be combined
with prescribed hydraulic gradients and discharge areas in solving practical
problems involving seepage quantities and velocities. When a coefficient of
permeability has been properly determined, it furnishes a very important fac-
tor in the analysis of seepage and in the design of drainage features for engi-
neering works.
The coefficient of permeability as used in this book and in soil mechanics
in general should be distinguished from the physicists' coefficient of perme-
ability K, which is a more general term than the engineers' c6efficient lJ.Ild has
units of centimeters squared rather than a velocity; it varies with the porosity
of the soil but is independent of the viscosity and density of the fluid. The
transmissibility factor T represents the capability of an aquifer to discharge
water and is the product of permeability k and aquifer thickness t.
The engineers' coefficient, which is used in practical problems of seepage
through masses of earth and other porous media, applies only to the flow of
water and is a simplification introduced purely from the stltndpoint of conve~
nience. It has units of a velocity and is expressed in centimeters per second,
feet per minute, feet per day, or feet per year; depending on the habits and
personal preferences of individuals using the coefficient. In standard soil me-
chanics terminology k is expressed in centimeters per second~
Although coefficient of permeability is often considered to be a constant
for a given soil or rock, it can vary widely for a given material, depending on
a number of factors. Its absolute values depend, first of all, on the properties
of water, of which viscosity is the most important. For individual materials
Att-Ad'lment 0 )3)1~
Ctdtrgrtn, ''Sc.epogc.> l)ra.i~e,tMo Plowt-Jetr~3r~~ted. I
.:1
i ':}.
'l .i
:i
ODE Multi-Flow Page 1 of l
-• --I -••"'
Horm; Multi-Flow Hazvent Request Catalog Conta
Multi-Flow
P[oduct Information
Applications
Fittings
Accessories
Technical
Backfill
Installation
Drainage Guide
~
GDE, HvHi-P,ovv
!MJcw01l'!ft::JFLOI
Drainage Core
Property
Thickness, inches
Row Rate, gpm/ft*
Compressive Strength
Geotextlle Filter
Property
Weight, oz/sq yd2
Tensile Strength, lb.
Elongation, %
Puncture, lb.
Mullen Burst, psi
Trapezoidal Tear, lb.
Coeffecient of Penn,cm/sec
Flow Rate, gpm/ft2
Permiltlvity, 1/sec
A.O.S Max US Std Sieve
UV Stability, 500 hrs., %
Seam Strength, lb./ft
Fungus
Technical Properties
Test Method
ASTM 0-1777
ASTM 0-4716
ASIM 0-1621
Test Method
ASTM 0·3776
ASTM D-4632
ASTM D-4632
ASTM 0-4833
ASTM D-3786
ASTM D-4533
ASTM D-4491
ASTM D-4491
ASTM D-4491
ASTM 04751
ASTM D-4355
ASTM 0-4595
ASTMG-21
Value
1.0 ..iL.
29 7'i
8000
value
4.0
100
50
50
200
42
0.1
100
1.8
70
70
100
No Growth
* Horizontal Installation , gradient = 0.01, compressive force = 1 0 I>SI for 1!
All values given represent minimum average roll values
GDE Control Products, Inc. laguna Hills, CA. 949-305-7117
< htlp: www.Bdc,wnttol, U>rvt/Hulti-flow'i.hhn\> Aito.U1~cnt £ 111
,,. .. .. ~. ..... ,. . .. ..
150 Designing with Geotextiles Chap. 2
TABLE 2.12 RECOMMENDED REDUCTION FACTOR VALUES FOR USE IN EO. (2.25&)
Range of Reduction Factors
Creep
Soil Oogging Reduction Intrusion Chemical Biological
Application and Blinding* of Voids into Voids Ooggingt Oogging
Retaining wall filters 2.0to4.0 1.5 to2.0 1.0to12 1.0to 1.2 1.0to 1.3
Underdrain filters 5.0to10 1.0to 1.5 l.Oto 1.2 1.2 to 1.5 2.0to4.0 -f Erosion-control filters 2.0to 10 1.0 to 1.5 1.0 to 1.2 1.0to 1.2 2.0to4.0
Landfill filters 5.0to 10 1.5 to 2.0 1.0to1.2 12 to 1.5 5 to 10* . ~ Gravity drainage 2.0to4.0 2.0to3.0 1.0 to 1.2 1.2 to 1.5
Pressure drainage 2.0to3.0 2.0to3.0 l.Oto 1.2 1.1 to 1.3 1.1 to 1.3
*If stone riprap or concrete blocks cover the surface of the geotextile, use either the upper values or include
an additional reduction factor.
tvalues can be higher particularl.y for high alkalinity groundwater.
*Values can be higher for turbidity and/or for microorganism contents greater than 5000 mgll.
where
qaUow = allowable flow rate,
quit = ultimate flow rate,
RFscs = reduction factor for soil clogging and blinding,
RF cR = reduction factor for creep reduction of void space,
(2.2Sb)
RFIN = reduction factor for adjacent materials intruding into geotextile's void
space,
RF cc = reduction factor for chemical clogging,
RF ac = reduction factor for biologicill clogging, and
llRF = value of cumulative reduction factors.
As with Eqs. (2.24) for strength reduction, this flow-reduction equation could also have
included additional site-specific terms, such as blocking of a portion of the geotextile's
surface by riprap or concrete blocks.
2.5 DESIGNING FOR SEPARATION
Application areas for geotextiles used for the separation function were given in Sec·
tion 1.3.3. There are many specific applications,.and it could be said, in a general sense.
that geotextiles always serve a separation function. If they do not also serve this tunc·
tion, any other function, including the primary one, will not be served properly. 'Ibis
should not give the impression that the geotextile function of separation always plays 8
secondary role. Many situations call for separation only, and in such cases the geotex· ·~ .
tiles serve a significant and worthwhile function.
Sec.2
2.5.1
Perha
is the:
cours
that t
sile s1
soils·
separ
andt
matic
of set
giver
2.5.2
Com
plaa
avail
thet
derl~
the~
fom
----------------------------
402 Designing with Geonets Chap, 4
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
(4.3)
FS = factor of safety (to handle unknown loading conditions or uncertainties
in the design method, etc.),
q.uow = allowable flow rate as obtained from laboratory testing, and
qreqd = required flow rate as obtained from design of the actual system.
Alternatively, we could work from transmissivity to obtain the equivalent relationship.
FS = Banow
8reqd
(4.4)
where 8 is the transmissivity, 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 geonets.
Concerning the allowable flow rate or transmissivity value, which comes from
hydraulic testing of the type described in Section 4.1.3,we m~t assess the realism of
the test setup in contrast to the actual.field system. If the test setup does not model site-
specific conditions adequately, then adjustments to the laboratory value must be made.
This is usually the case. Thus the laboratory-generated value is an ultimate value that
ml,lSt be reduced before use in design; that is,
qanow <quit
One way of doing this is to ascribe reduction factors on each of the items not ade-
quately assessed in the laboratory test. For example,
qanow = quit[ 1 ] RFrN X RFcR X RFcc X RFBc
or if all of the reduction factors are considered together.
where
qanow = quit[rr~]
quit = flow rate determined using AS1M D4716 or IS<)fiHS!12SI.5~:~~~~:'·]
term tests between solid platens using water as the tr~~--rp,~"':'ll~';<
under laboratory test temperatures,
Sec.4
I
Some
given i
inform
and lie
specifi,
thepa
ample!
tionfa
Exampi
v
a
d
ri
s
E
TAl!
FOF
Sp
Ca
R<
Re
Dt
Su
I
Se
lith Geonets Chap. 4
1ction concept is the es-
, flow rate is the primary
(4.3)
ditions or uncertainties
testing, and
e actual system.
~ equivalent relationship.
(4.4)
liscussed· previously, how·
transmissivity because of
value which comes from
nust ~ss the realism of
setup does not model site-
a tory value must be made. ~ is an ultimate value that
ach of the items not ade-
~BJ (4.5}
:i;.:
·:.'•N
Sec. 4.1 Geonet Properties and Test Methods
qanow = allowable flow rate to be used in Eq. ( 4.3) for final design purposes,
RPm= reduction factor for elastic deformation, or intrusion, of the adjacent
geosynthetics into the geonet's core space,
403
RF cR = reduction factor for creep deformation of the geonet and/or adjacent
geosynthetic8 into the geonet's core space,
RFcc = reduction factor for chemical clogging and/or precipitation of chemicals
in the geonet's core space,
RFsc =reduction factor for biological clogging in the geonet's core space, and
TIRF = 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 that some of these values are based on relatively sparse
information. Other reduction factors, such as installation damage, temperature effects,
and liquid turbidity, could also be included. If 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.
Example4.2 ~ What is the allowable geonet flow rate to be used in the design of a capillary break beneath
a roadway to prevent frost heave? Assume that laboratory testing was done at the proper
design load and hydraulic gradient and that this testing yielded a short-term between-
rigid-plates value of 2.5 x 10-4 m2/s. ·T
Solution: Since better information is not known, average values from Table 4.2 are used in
Eq.(45).
TABLE4.2 RECOMMENDED PREUMINARY REDUCTION FACTOR VALUES FOR EO. (4.5)
FOR DETERMINING ALLOWABLE FLOW RATE OR TRANSMISSIVITY OF GEONETS
Application Area RPm RFCR* RFcc RFBc
Sport fields 1.0 to 1.2 1.0 to 1.5 1.0to 1.2 1.1 to 1.3
Capillary breaks 1.1 to 1.3 1.0 to 1.2 1.1 to 1.5 1.1 to 1.3
Roof and plaza decks 1.2 to 1.4 1.0to 1.2 1.0to1.2 1.1 to 1.3
Retaining walls, seeping rock, 1.3 to 1.5 1.2 to 1.4 1.1 to 1.5 1.0 to 1.5
and soil slopes
Drainage blankets 1.3 to 1.5 1.2 to 1.4 1.0to 1.2 l.Oto 1.2
Surface water drains for 1.3 to 1.5 1.1 to 1.4 1.0to1.2 1.2 to 1.5
landfill covers
Secondary leachate collection 1.5 to2.0 1.4to2.0 1.5 to 2.0 1.5 to2.0
(landfills)
Primary leachate collection 1.5 to2.0 1.4to2.0 L5to2.0 1.5 to 2.0
(landfills)
*These values are sensitive to the density of the resin used in the geonet's manufacture. The higher
the density, the lower the reduction factor. Creep of the covering geotextile(s) is a product-specific
issue.
'. ! .
670 Designing with Geopipes
The above formula can be readily converted to flow rate, Q, by multiplying the vel<ocit:v:
by the cross-sectional area A of the pipe.
For pipelines that are either flowing full or flowing partially full, the Mt.rnninci:
equation is generally used.
where
V = velocity of flow (m/s ),
RH = hydraulic radius (m),
S = slope or gradient of pipeline (m/m), and
n = coefficient of roughness (see Table 7. 7) (dimensionless).
Note that plastic pipe of the type discussed in this chapter, with a smooth interior,
Manning coefficient from 0.009 to 0.010. Plastic pipe with a profiled or corrugated
rior has a Manning coefficient ranging from 0.018 to 0.025. · ··
Eqs. (7.9) and (7.10) are generally used in the form of charts or noJm.o:gr~P,l
determine pipe sizes, flow velocity or discharge flow rates (see Figures 7.6 .
each chart we include an example from Hwang [7], illustrated on the respe~~~~~
graphs by heavy lines. Note that both nomographs are for pipes flowing
Example7.1
A 100 m long pipe with D = 200 mm and C = 120 carries a discharge of
the head loss in the pipe. (See the Hazen-Williams chart in Figure 7.6.)
Solution: Applying the conditions given to the solution chart in Figure 7.6,. · . · ·
dient is obtained. ·
S = 0.0058 m/m
TABLE 7.7 VALUES OF MANNING ROUGHNESS COEFFICIENT, N, FOR RE'PRI~El
SURFACES
JYpe of Pipe Surface
concrete
Unfinished concrete, well-laid brickwork, concrete or cast iron pipe
Riveted or spiral steel pipe
Smooth, uniform earth channel
Corrugated flumes, typical canals, river free from large stones and heavy weed1t:
Canals and rivers with many stones and weeds
*The table does not distinguish between different types of plastic, or between
pipes with perforations.
Source: After Fox and McDonald [9}.
FROM SOIL
PROPERTIES TESTS
NOTES:
CHART 1
SOIL RETENTION CRITERIA
FOR STEAOY-ST ATE FLOW CONDITIONS
~
NON·DISPERSIVE SOIL
IOHR < 0.51
DISPERSIVE SOIL
USE 3 TO 6 inches OF FINE SAND BETWEEN
SOIL AND GEOTEXTILE. THEN DESIGN THE
GEOTEXTILE AS A FILTER FOR THE SAND
LESS THAN 20"/. 1
CLAY. AND MORE
THAN 10~. FINES
ldz0>0.002 mm
AND dt0•0.075 mm1
IDHR •0.51
PLASTIC SOIL
IPI•SI
NON.PLASTIC SOIL
(PI• 51
I / t r---------'----./
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I I
I
I
ld">0.075 mm.AND
I dloc4.8 mml I
ld.:)• 4.8 mm1
I
I
I
I
• I
·.
STABLE
SOIL
(I~ Cc ~31
USE
.dso -c·u :ho
USE
\UNSTABLE ~-c· SOIL dro
ICc • 3 or Cc c il
..
IS the partrcle SIZe ol which x percent rs smaller
I
where: d·1oo and d·o are the extremrtres ol a stra1ght line
/
/
/
/ I
/
/
drawn through the oarticle·s1ze d1strrbutron. as directed above: and
d. so is the midoornt of this fine.
10 IS the relatrve denisty of the so1l
PI 1s the olastrc1ty index ol the so1l
OHR IS the aouble·hydrometer ratio of the so11
Portrons oi lh1s flow cnart mod1hed I rom Giraud 119881
/ /
/
/
/
/
/ /
13
Source: Luettich, S.M., Giroud, J.P., and Bachus, R.C. (1991).
"Geotextile Filter Design Manual". Report prepared
for Nicolon Corporation. Norcross, Georgia.
4.2 Define the Hydraulic Gradient for the AppJication Cj.J
The hydraulic gradient will vary depending on the application of the filter.
Anticipated hydraulic gradients for various applications may be estimated using
Figure 3.
4.3 Determine the Minimum Allowable Geotextile Permeability <kJ
After determining the soil hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic gradient, the
following equation can be used to detennine the minimum allowable geotextile
permeability [Giraud, 1988]:
The hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of the geotextile can be calculated
from the permittivity test method ASTM D 4491; this value can often be obtained
from the manufacturer's literature as well. The geotextile permeability is defined
as the product of the permittivity, tJr, and the geotextile thickness, tg:
k, > cp t,
STEP 5. DETERMINE ANTI-CLOGGING REQUIREMENTS
To minimize the risk of clogging, the following criteria should be met:
..
• Use the largest opening size (095) that satisfies the retention criteria.
• For nonwoven geotextiles, use the largest porosity available, but not less
than 30 percent.
• For woven geotextiles, use the largest percent open area available, but not
less than 4 percent.
Source: Luettich, S.M., Giroud, J.P., and Bachus, R.C. (1991).
"Geotextile Filter Design Manual". Report prepared
for Nicolon Corporation, Norcross, Georgia.
7
NOTES:
Table 4-5
Typical Hydraulic Gradients1a)
DRAINAGE APPLICATION TYPICAL HYDRAULIC
GRADIENT
Standard Dewatering Trench 1.0
Vertical Wall Drain 1.5
Pavement Edge Drain 11bl
Landfill LCDRS 1.5
Landfill LCRS 1.5
Landfill SWCRS 1.5
Inland Channel Protection 1(bl
Shoreline Protection 1Q(bl
Dams 1Q(bl
Uquid Impoundments 10(b)
Ia> Table developed after Giraud [1988].
(b) Critical applications may require designing with higher gradients than
those given.
44
Unit Weight ASTM D-3776 Dz.lyd.2 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 16.0
Grab Tensile ASTM D-4632 lbs. 150 200 235 275 350
Grab Elongation ASTM D-4632 % 50 50 50 50 50 50
Mullen Burst ASTM D-3787 psi 225 350 450 660 650 750
Puncture ASTM D-4833 lbs. 55 90 130 165 185 220
Trapezoid Tear ASTM D-4533 35 65 80 95 115 130
Apparent Opening Size ASTM D-4751
Permittivity ASTM D-4491
Permeability ASTM D-4491
Thickness ASTM 0-1777
Grab Tensile ASTM D-4632 lbs. 130/115 2251200 275/270 3151310 4101370 5101470
Grab Elongation ASTM D-4632 % 75 65 65 65 65 65
Mullen Burst ASTMD-3786 psi 285 410 575 650 625 920
Puncture ASTM D-4833 lbs. 75 120 170 190 210 270
Trapezoid Tear ASTM D-4533 60/50 100/80 140/120 toon40 1asnss
Apparent Opening Size ASTM D-4751
Permittivity ASTM D-4491
Permeability ASTM D-4491
RoD Width ft. 15 15 15 15 15 15
Roll Length ft. 1200 900 600 600 450 300
Gross Weight lbs. 500 650 500 600 550 500
1000 1000 750 500
r~oto fttitxl~ t f\~
~lllf.&ll.
''/(\vloCo ~te. ~
Gwtcxti(es '' v,
3FT-SM2.0UT
D
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
**
**
"lr'ic
'I<*
** *'~'
**
**
**
HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE
HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997)
DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
**
** **
**
**
*'~'
**
**
'lr*
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE:
TEMPERATURE DATA FILE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE:
C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D4
C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D7
C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D13
C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D11
C:\HLP3\IUC\SOIL-8.D10
C:\HLP3\IUC\3ft-sm2.0UT
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA:
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE:
OUTPUT DATA FILE:
TIME: 11:34 DATE: 5/ 4/2007
******************************************************************************
TITLE: IUC 40 feet, 10 year slime drain simulation
******************************************************************************
NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE
COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.
LAYER 1
TYPE 1 -VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 0
THICKNESS 36.00 INCHES
POROSITY 0.4730 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY 0. 2220 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT 0.1040 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.2000 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 0.520000001000E-03 CM/SEC
LAYER 2
TYPE 2 -LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
Page 1
3FT-SM2.0UT
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 0
THICKNESS 6. 00 INCHES
POROSITY 0.4730 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY 0. 2220 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT 0.1040 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT 0.2220 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. 0.520000001000E-03 CM/SEC
SLOPE 1. 00 PERCENT
DRAINAGE LENGTH = 75.0 FEET
GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 7 WITH BARE
GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 1.% AND
A SLOPE LENGTH OF 75. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER
FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE =
LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE
INITIAL SNOW WATER
INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS
TOTAL INITIAL WATER
TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW
88.80
0.0
1.000
16.0
2.762
7.568
1.664
0.000
8.532
8.532
0.00
PERCENT
ACRES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES/YEAR
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA
NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM
GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
STATION LATITUDE
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX
START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE)
END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE)
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY
AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY
AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY
39.07 DEGREES
1.00
109
293
16.0 INCHES
8.10 MPH
60.00 %
36.00 %
36.00 %
57.00%
NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
Page 2
0.64
0.47
0.54
0.91
3FT-SM2.0UT
0.75 0.71
0. 70 0.87
0.76
0.63
0.44
0.58
NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
JAN/JUL
25.50
78.90
COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
FEB/AUG
33.50
75.90
MAR/SEP
41.90
67.10
APR/OCT
51.70
54.90
MAY/NOV
62.10
39.60
JUN/DEC
72.30
28.30
NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
AND STATION LATITUDE 39.07 DEGREES
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1
INCHES --------
PRECIPITATION 7.42
RUNOFF 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 6.873
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 0.000000
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0. 547
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 8.532
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9.080
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000
cu. FEET ----------26934.602
0.000
24947.395
0.000
1987.206
30971.395
32958.598
0.000
0.000
0.002
PERCENT
100.00
0.00
92.62
0.00
7.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 2
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
PRECIPITATION 9.91 35973.301 100.00
Page 3
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
3FT-SM2.0UT
0.000
11.228
0.012633
-1.331
9.080
7.619
0.000
0.130
0.0000
0.000
40758.055
45.857
-4830.604
32958.598
27656.164
0.000
471.831
-0.008
0.00
113.30
0.13
-13.43
0.00
1.31
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 3
INCHES --------
PRECIPITATION 8.74
RUNOFF 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 8.431
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 0.000000
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.309
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 7.619
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 8.058
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.130
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000
cu. FEET ----------31726.203
0.000
30605.041
0.000
1121.151
27656.164
29249.146
471.831
0.000
0.010
PERCENT
100.00
0.00
96.47
0.00
3.53
1.49
0.00
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 4
INCHES
8.57
0.000
Page 4
CU. FEET
31109.109
0.000
PERCENT
100.00
0.00
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
3FT-SM2.0UT
8.223
2 0.003014
0.344
8.058
8.401
0.000
0.000
0.0000
29850.770
10.940
1247.404
29249.146
30496.551
0.000
0.000
-0.004
95.96
0.04
4.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 5
INCHES --------
PRECIPITATION 10.36
RUNOFF 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 10.137
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 0.000000
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 0.223
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 8.401
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 8.624
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000
cu. FEET ----------37606.805
0.000
36797.102
0.000
809.710
30496.551
31306.262
0.000
0.000
-0.007
PERCENT
100.00
0.00
97.85
0.00
2.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 6
INCHES
7.78
0.000
Page 5
CU. FEET
28241.400
0.000
PERCENT
100.00
0.00
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
3FT-SM2.0UT
8.167
2 0.000000
-0.387
8.624
8.237
0.000
0.000
0.0000
29645.734
0.000
-1404.339
31306.262
29901.922
0.000
0.000
0.005
104.97
0.00
-4.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 7
INCHES --------
PRECIPITATION 8.20
RUNOFF 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 7.154
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 0.000000
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 1.046
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 8.237
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 9.023
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.260
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000
cu. FEET ----------29766.002
0.000
25970.750
0.000
3795.249
29901.922
32752.676
0.000
944.495
0.004
PERCENT
100.00
0.00
87.25
0.00
12.75
0.00
3.17
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 8
INCHES cu. FEET PERCENT -------------------------
PRECIPITATION 7.46 27079.803 100.00
RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.00
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 8.640 31362.828 115.82
Page 6
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
3FT-SM2.0UT
0.017125
-1.197
9.023
7.452
0.260
0.634
0.0000
62.163
-4345.196
32752.676
27050.932
944.495
2301.042
0.009
0. 23
-16.05
3.49
8.50
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 9
INCHES --------
PRECIPITATION 5.83
RUNOFF 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 6.171
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 0.000000
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.341
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 7.452
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 7.582
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.634
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.163
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000
cu. FEET ----------21162.902
0.000
22400.824
0.000
-1237.930
27050.932
27522.836
2301.042
591.209
0.008
PERCENT
100.00
0.00
105.85
0.00
-5.85
10.87
2.79
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 10
INCHES cu. FEET PERCENT -------------------------
PRECIPITATION 7.35 26680.502 100.00
RUNOFF 0.000 0.000 0.00
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 6.669 24209.432 90.74
Page 7
PERC./LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE
3FT-SM2.0UT
0.000000
0.681
7.582
8.309
0.163
0.116
0.0000
0.000
2471.069
27522.836
30162.926
591.209
422.187
0.001
0.00
9. 26
2.22
1. 58
0.00
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10
PRECIPITATION
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
RUNOFF
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
0.44
0.39
0.23
0.30
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.440
0. 512
0.214
0.398
0.44
1.08
0.30
0.48
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.536
0.979
0.265
0. 510
0.65
0.58
0.31
0.44
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.624
0.483
0.279
0.397
0.81
1.00
0.44
0.63
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0. 720
0.735
0.353
0.632
0.75
0.94
0. 53
0.52
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.941
0. 587
0.546
0.250
0.52
0.54
0.63
0.31
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.161
0.451
0.558
0.226
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
0.0000 0.0000 0.0001 0.0010 0.0009 0.0008
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0005 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0004 0.0024 0.0020 0.0017
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0014 0.0000
*******************************************************************************
Page 8
3FT-SM2.0UT
*******************************************************************************
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10
INCHES cu. FEET PERCENT -----------------------------------------PRECIPITATION 8.16 ( 1.320) 29628.1 100.00
RUNOFF 0.000 ( 0.0000) 0.00 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 8.169 ( 1. 5803) 29654.79 100.090
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH 0.00328 ( 0.00628) 11.896 0.04015
LAYER 2
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.011 ( 0.7880) -38.63 -0.130
*******************************************************************************
D ******************************************************************************
PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
SNOW WATER
MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
1 THROUGH
(INCHES) ----------0.86
0.000
0.002888
0.72
10
(CU. FT.) -------------
0. 2313
0.1040
3121.800
0.0000
10.48416
2615.3926
******************************************************************************
D
******************************************************************************
FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 10
LAYER
1
2
SNOW WATER
(INCHES)
6. 9773
1. 3320
0.116
(VOL/VOL)
0.1938
0.2220
******************************************************************************
******************************************************************************
Page 9
I (3/11/201 0) Loren fylorton -RE: DUSA Ceii4A Construction: Two Items noted.
From:
To:
CC:
Date:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dave,
<[e-mail]>
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>, <[e-mail] ...
<[e-mail]>, <[e-mail]>
712108 5:42 PM
RE: DUSA Cell 4A Construction: Two Items noted.
Slimes Drain Drainage.070208.pdf
I have revised the calculations presented in the Analysis of Slimes Drain included in the Cell 4A Interrogatories. The original
calculation was based on an area for flow to pass into the strip composite of 14 inches per foot of length (12 inches across the top
and two sides at 1 inch each). This calculation, using the maximum liquid depth resulted in a drainage time of approximately 5.5
years.
The sand bag coverage issue likely only impacts a discreet amount of the sides of the strip composite (probably much less than
10%). However, taking a conservative approach, I assumed that all two inches of the sides of the entire strip composite is not
available for flow. Incorporating the 12 inches per foot of length flow area into the maximum liquid level model calculation results in
a drainage time of approximately 6.4 years (see attached), an increase of approximately 0.9 years. Given that the relationship is
linear, one can interpolate between 5.5 and 6.4 years to estimate the impact of the percentage of strip composite sides that are not
covered by sand bags. If this value is 10%, one can estimate that the drainage time would be approximately 5.6 years (0.9 years x
10% + 5.5 years).
We believe that this minor change meets the design intent.
Please let us know if you have additional comments, and confirm that this addresses your concerns.
Regards,
Greg
From: Dave Rupp [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 02, 2008 1:54 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Greg Corcoran
Cc: Jim Cox; Jephory McMichen; Loren Morton
Subject: RE: DUSA Cell 4A Construction: Two Items noted.
Greg,
Thanks for your response. As I view section C-5 of the drawings, the sandbags drape over the both edges of the strip-drain, and
preclude access to the edge and top of the strip-drain by the tailings. This will be a criterion we will use in inspecting for
conformance to the existing plans.
The first photograph DRC sent on 6-25-08 regarding this problem shows six openings through the sandbags to the strip-drain
surfaces. It appears that if the existing bags are only centered with respect to the strip-drain, the coverage will not achieve
conformance to the drawing section C-5.
The design intent was to fully protect the strip-drain from clogging. Therefore, DUSA needs to make the necessary adjustments
to conform to the drawings, or submit an alternative design proposal to accomplish the design intent. --
David A. Rupp, P.E.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
P. 0. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
»> <[e-mail]> 7/1/2008 1:50PM>»
Dave,
Over the past few days, the contractor has repositioned sand bags over the slimes drain to address this issue, and bring the
installation into compliance with the design drawings and specifications. We believe this fully addresses your earlier concerns.
Please let us know if you have additional comments, and confirm that this addresses your concerns.
Regards,
Greg
From: Dave Rupp [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, July 01,2008 6:41AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; Greg Corcoran
Cc: Jim Cox; Jephory McMichen; Loren Morton
Subject: RE: DUSA Cell 4A Construction: Two Items noted.
Greg,
I am fine with your explanation of the waves in the geomembrane and strip-drain.
However, regarding the overfilled sandbags creating incomplete coverage over the strip-drains, DUSA needs to either:
1 ). Provide revised calculations showing the new time required for completion of the drainage of the tailings through the slimes
drain, at the time of cell closure. This is critical, given the existing configuration which departs from the approved design, in which
Page 1 I
I (3/11/2010) Loren Morton-RE: DUSA Ceii4A Construction: Two Items noted.
portions of the strip-drain would now be compromised by invasion of the strip-drains by slimes material, and the corresponding
reduction of flow into the collection pipe, or
2). Provide proposed design or field construction adjustments to prevent this problem, with corresponding calculations as
necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the adjustments.
We cannot agree with your claim that when the cell is loaded the sandbags will settle and the problem may resolve itself,
because there will be no practical means available to verify this claim. Without such verification DUSA has an obligation to prevent
the problem now.
Please be advised that the As-built Report cannot be approved without prior resolution of this construction problem. --
David A. Rupp, P.E.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
P. 0. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
»> <[e-mail]> 6/25/2008 1 :30 PM >»
Dave,
The waves in the geomembrane are a result of expanding geomembrane (thermal expansion due to increasing daytime
temperatures) and the "plastic memory" in the underlying geonet. The plastic memory results from the manufacturing process,
which uses an extrusion process consisting of extruding molten plastic through counter-rotating, round dies. As the plastic geonet
is formed, it exits the die as a round column. As the plastic net cools in the column, the plastic develops a slight "memory" of this
shape. After the column is cut and laid flat to form the geonet rolls, the geonet "remembers" that it was once a column or tube
shape and when laid flat exhibits some minor curling of the edges. This is not detrimental to the geonet, but just creates minor
curling of the edges that are easily laid flat with a small normal load on the surface.
The waves will lay down once the sand bags are put in place between the header pipe and the lateral. The filling of the cell with
liquids will provide a relatively uniform liner system temperature, thereby reducing the thermal expansion due to elevated daytime
air temperature. The material in the cell, whether liquid or solid, will also provide ballast that will get the waves to lay down,
especially the underlying geonet with its "plastic memory". Remember that the slimes drain system will not be operated until the
cell is filled with tailings.
The section on the drawings does show that the sand bag drapes over the strip composite. However, some of the sandbags were
overfilled and leave a small gap at the sides of the strip composite. We do not believe that this causes any problems with the intent
of the slimes drain design. Furthermore, we believe that the sand bags will settle in a bit more once the liquid loading is in the cell.
The sand bags were designed to provide a sand layer that would act as a filtration layer in addition to the filter geotextile on the strip
composite. The bags themselves were only required as a means to get the sand on top of the strip composite. In addition, the
sand in the sand bags will convey liquid to the header pipe as the bags are placed in a continuous line.
Please let us know if you have additional comments, and confirm that this addresses your concerns.
Regards,
Greg
From: Dave Rupp [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 8:08AM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Cc: Greg Corcoran; Jephory McMichen; Loren Morton
Subject: DUSA Cell 4A Construction: Two Items noted.
Harold/Steve:
On a site visit last Friday, I had two items of concern I wanted to point out for your resolution.
The main one is the covering by the sand bags on the strip drains. Incomplete covering of the drains is seen now, and does not
conform to the drawings, which show the bags completely covering the drains. On site I spoke with Messrs. D.Turk of DUSA and
J.McMichen of GeoSyntec regarding this.
The other item is the inconsistent grade of the last few feet of some of the strip-drains near their connection to the herring
backbone interceptor piping. The is grade waving, which if left would impede the flow from the strip-drain into the piping.
These items are illustrated in the attached photos. These items will need to be resolved prior to DRC final acceptance. Please
contact me if you have questions. - -
David A. Rupp, P.E.
Utah Division of Radiation Control
P. 0. Box 144850
Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850
Telephone [phone]
Fax[phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Page 21
Permeability Permeability Drainage Thickness Path Length (em/sec) (ft/min) (ft.) (VF)
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.3 39
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 45.8 38
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 45.4 37
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 45.0 36
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 44.6 35
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 44.2 34
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.8 33
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.5 32
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.2 31
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.0 30
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.8 29
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.6 28
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.4 27
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.3 26
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.2 25
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 24
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 23
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 22
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 21
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.2 20
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.3 19
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.5 18
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.6 17
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.8 16
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.1 15
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.3 14
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 43.6 13
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 44.0 12
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 44.3 11
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 44.7 10
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 45.1 9
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 45.6 8
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.0 7
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 46.5 6
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 47.1 5
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 47.6 4
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 48.2 3
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 48.8 2
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 49.4 1
Average Soil Porosity 0.22
Geomean Soil Permeability 3.31E-04 em/sec
Distance Between Drains 50 ft
Thickness of Unit 1 ft
Maximum Depth 39 ft
Length of Strip Drain 27,550 ft
Slimes Drain Drainage.070208.xls
TABLE3
White Mesa Mill
Cell 4A Slimes Drain
IWIQAIIIIUIII &..1 UIU ..... 'G' '-11
Volume of Time to
Q (cfm/ft) Liquid Dewater
(CF/ftl (minNF/ftl
5.49E-04 11 20,049
5.40E-04 11 20,354
5.31E-04 11 20,722
5.21E-04 11 21,110
5.11E-04 11 21,520
5.01E-04 11 21,954
4.91E-04 11 22.415
4.79E-04 11 22,957
4.67E-04 11 23,534
4.54E-04 11 24,206
4.41E-04 11 24,924
4.28E-04 11 25,694
4.15E-04 11 26,520
4.00E-04 11 27.475
3.86E-04 11 28,507
3.71E-04 11 29,624
3.56E-04 11 30,912
3.40E-04 11 32,317
3.25E-04 11 33,856
3.09E-04 11 35,633
2.93E-04 11 37,598
2.76E-04 11 39,874
2.60E-04 11 42,319
2.43E-04 11 45,175
2.27E-04 11 48,524
2.11E-04 11 52,231
1.94E-04 11 56,639
1.78E-04 11 61,922
1.62E-04 11 68,012
1.46E-04 11 75.488
1.30E-04 11 84,626
1.14E-04 11 96,260
9.91E-05 11 110,977
8.40E-05 11 130,880
6.91E-05 11 159,083
5.47E-05 11 200,964
4.05E-05 11 271,330
2.67E-05 11 412,062
1.32E-05 11 834,256
days
years
Time to
Dewater
(davsNF/ftl
13.92
14.13
14.39
14.66
14.94
15.25
15.57
15.94
16.34
16.81
17.31
17.84
18.42
19.08
19.80
20.57
21.47
22.44
23.51
24.75
26.11
27.69
29.39
31.37
33.70
36.27
39.33
43.00
47.23
52.42
58.77
66.85
77.07
90.89
110.47
139.56
188.42
286.15
579.34
2,321.18
6.36
Total Flow Volume Removed Pipe
Limitation Rate(gpm) (gal) (days)
113.07 2,266,966 0.18
111.38 2,266,966
109.40 2,266,966
107.39 2,266,966
105.34 2,266,966
103.26 2,266,966
101.14 2,266,966
98.75 2,266,966
96.33 2,266,966
93.65 2,266,966
90.96 2,266,966
88.23 2,266,966
85.48 2,266,966
82.51 2,266,966 1
79.52 2,266,966
76.52 2,266,966
73.34 2,266,966
70.15 2,266,966
66.96 2,266,966
63.62 2,266,966
60.30 2,266,966 I
56.85 2,266,966 I
53.57 2,266,966
50.18 2,266,966
46.72 2,266,966
43.40 2,266,966
40.02 2,266,966
36.61 2,266,966
33.33 2,266,966
30.03 2,266,966
26.79 2,266,966
23.55 2,266,966
20.43 2,266,966
17.32 2,266,966
14.25 2,266,966
11.28 2,266,966
8.36 2,266,966
5.50 2,266,966
2.72 2,266,966
88,411,655 0.18
7/2/2008
... ,~·· ~-""""'-~-~· ~---'-"-'-"·'·~--~--'"··--·-·---···-''-·"'-•.• --··-·· '-"''~-... -.,.~,..:~·.-....... •. -.,~-----~-·--·~~·-·-· ........ ,__,...,'-"•-·-~'-..... "·""-"·~·-••·.•. ~-·-·--~' ..,.,;.:h:•·o-"~"-""'-<":'-'·"'"~"'---'--,_,~,_ ..... _ -·· ··-·-. _ _._ ~ ...... "-'-'-=-:·..:c.-:-' . .:.2 .;..,·,-,_._.,._,,_, •:·~--'• ••• ..,_,'~':;.:.c..-:;::::.":,,..,,~-:::.;..>.:.-.;--'--'-:·;>:>-~:-:,---,-;.·~·~{
... )
··-..... ..-
)
) '· -···
Geosyntec C>
consultants
COMPUTATION COVER SHEET
Denison
Client: Mines Project: White Mesa Mill-Ceii4B
Title of Computations
Computations by:
Assumptions and
Proc«<ures Checked
by:
Title (peer reviewer)
Computations Signature
Checke<) by:
Title
Computations Signature backchecked by: Printed Name (originator) Title
Approved by: Signature (pm or designate) Printed Name
Title
Approval notes:
Revisi1.1ns (number and initial aH revisions)
No. Sheet Date By
SC0349/SC0349-Slimes Drnin Cale4B.200708JO.doc
Cheeked by
Project/
Proposal No.:
ToskNo.
SC0349-0l
04
\\15ola::r
Date
Date
Date
Approval
~=
l-i·
: ..
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
1
1
. ) ·· ..... /
.. )
Geosyntec I>
consultants
Page 1 of 10
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 08130107 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: ----
Client: Denison Proje<t: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-01
Mines Celi4B Proposal No.:
PURPOSE AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Task 04
No.:
The purpose of this calculation package is to demonstrate that the proposed "slimes
drain system" will dewater the tailings at the site within a reasonable time. ·
Fluid flow rate in porous media will be evaluated using Darcy's Jaw.
ASSUMPTIONS
• This project involves the construction of a 42 acre double lined tailings cell
(Cell4B) that is approximately 42 feet deep at its deepest point and 31 feet deep
at the shallowest point with an average depth of 35 feet. The liquids level in the
cell will be kept a minimum of 3 feet below the top of the berm (free-board).
Therefore, the maximum depth of liquid in the cell will be 39 feet at the start of
dewatering.
• The cell will be filled with -28 mesh (US No. 30 sieve) taiiings, largely
consisting of fine sands and silts, with some clay. Results of grinding test sieve
analyses, which are reported based on Tyler Mesh sieve sizes, are presented in
Table 1. The grinding test data report is presented in Attachment A. Sieve to
Tyler Mesh conversions are presented in Attachment B.
• The tailings will be placed within the cell in a slurry form under the surface of
the free liquid contained within the cell. This placement methodology is
anticipated to result in a low density (no compaction) soil stmcture. Therefore,
saturated hydraulic conductivity and total porosity are anticipated to pe higher
than similar soils that are compacted.
• Based on the grinding report (Attachment A), tailings are comprised of
approximately 6% medium sand, 49% fine sand, and 45% silt and clay size
particles (Table I).
• Based on the gradation of the tailings (Table 1) from the grinding report
(Attachment A), the tailings would be classified as silty sand (SM) by the unified
soil classification system (USCS). According to the Hydrologic Evaluation of
Landfill Performance (HELP) Model Engineering Documentation
(Attachment C), low density SM soils would exhibit saturated hydraulic
SC0349 -Slimes Drain Calc4B.20070830.doc
;·.
Geosyntec I>
Page
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 08130/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-0l
Mines Cell4B Proposal No.:
consultants
.2 of 10
Date:
Task 04
No.:
conductivities of between 1.7xl0-3 em/sec and 5.2xl04 em/sec and low density
silt (ML) and sandy clay (SC) would exhibit saturated hydraulic conductivities
of between 3.7xlo-4 em/sec and 1.2x10-4 em/sec. The geomean of these two
groups of soils, which are gradationally similar to the tailings, is 4.74xlo-4
em/sec (Table 2). According to Cedergren (Attachment D), under a normal
stress of 2 tons per square foot (approximate notmal stress on deeper tailings in
the cell), medium sand, fme sand, silt, and silty clay would exhibit a saturated
hydraulic conductivities of approximately 2x10-2 em/sec, lxlo-2 em/sec, lx10-4
em/sec Sxl o-7 em/sec, respectively. The geomean of these three soil types,
where are gradationally similar to the tailings, is 3.31xl04 em/sec. The more
conservative, lower hydraulic conductivity of 3.31x10-4 em/sec, will be used in
this analysis.
• Based on the gradation of the tailings from the grinding report, the tailings
would be classified as silty sand (SM) by the unified soil classification system
(USCS). According to the HELP . Model Engineering Documentation
(Attachment C), low density SM soils would exhibit drainable porosity of
between 0.251 and 0.332 and low density silt (ML) and sandy clay (SC) would
exhibit drainable porosity of between 0.154 and 0.231. The average of these two
groups of soils, which are gradationally similar to the tailings, is 0.253 (Table 2).
According to the HELP Model Engineering Documentation, medium sand, fine
sand, silt, and silty clay would exhibit drainable porosity values of 0.35, 0.29,
0.14, and 0.11, respectively. The average of these three soil types, where are
gradationally similar to the tailings, is 0.22. Since the average drainable porosity
· of 0.22 corresponds to the lower hydraulic conductivity (higher density, lower
permeability, lower porosity) selected above, this value will be used in this
analysis.
• The permeability of the tailings is isotropic.
• Darcy's law will be used to compute groundwater flow velocities.
• The proposed slimes drain system will consist of a series of strip drains
(geotextile wrapped HDPE core, 1" thick, 12" wide, with a transmissivity of
29 (gallminlft), which connect to a perforated 4" diameter PVC header pipe that
SC0349-Slimes Drnin C.lc4B.20070830.doc ·
' I :\
l i ;
::·-. ' ·I ' Written by: R. Flynn Date: 08130/07
Client: Denison
Mines
Project: White Mesa MIII-
Ceii4B
Reviewed by:
Project/
Proposal No.:
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 3 of 10
G. Corcoran Date: t~ohlor
SC0349-0l Task 04
No.:
is bedded .in drainage aggregate and wrapped in a woven geotextile. The PVC
pipe will convey the liquid to the sump for removal.
• The slimes drain spacing will be 50' and will be continuous across the base of
the cell (Figure 1 ).
CALCULATIONS
The flow geometry for the average depth of liquid within the cell is illustrated on
Figure 2 and used to compute the emptying time for the proposed slimes drain system.
Calculate the flow into a unit length of strip drain for the various hydraulic gradient
conditions.
At the start of cell dewatering, the maximum depth of liquid will vmy between 31 feet at
··~ -~ the shallow end and 39 feet at the deep end, with an average depth of approximately 35
· ...... ·' feet. As the water level drops within the cell, the length of the longest flow path and the
associated hydraulic gradient will continually change with time.
The total volume to be drained by a unit length of strip, Q, can be calculated using
Darcy's law as follows:
Q "'kiA
where:
k =hydraulic conductivity of tailings"' 3.31x10'4 em/sec= 6.51x10'4 ftlmin
i =gradient along flowpath = dh "'~"' 0.86 (see Figure 2)
dl 40.6
A= area of strip drain where flow will pass "'1, 17 Jf/ft
Q"' (6.51x1o-4 fl_ )(0.86)(1.17 ft2)
mm
Q"'6.55x10'4 ft' x7.48gal "'4.9xlo-> gal
min ft3 min
SC0349 ·Slimes Drain Calc4B.20070830.doc
(see Figure 3)
,.
I
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 08/30/07
Client: Denison
Mines
Project: Whito 1\lesa MIII-
Ceii4B
Reviewed by:
Project!
Proposal No.:
Geosyntec e>
consultants
Page 4 of 10
G. Corcoran Date: rzh/or
SC0349-0l Task 04
No.:
For each one foot incremental drop in fluid elevation within the cell, the total volume to
be drained by a unit length of strip drain is as follows:
V = 1 ft unit length x 1ft depth x 50 ft width x 0.022 ( drainable porosity) = 11 ft3 of free
liquid
Therefore, the time to drain the first one foot of liquid within the cell can be estimated
as follows:
t = V/Q = 11 ft3 I 6.55x1 o·4 fP/min = 16,793 minutes = 11.66 days
Tables 3, 4, and 5 depict the calculations for the maximum (39 feet), average (35 feet),
and minimum (31 feet) cell liquid depth, respectively. The results of the maximum
depth calculations indicate that the proposed slimes drain system will allow the tailings
contained in Cell4B to drain within approximately 5.45 years.
Calculate the design flow rate of the strip drains.
For this calculation we will assume that the strip drains have a flow rate of29 gallon per
minute per foot (Attachment E, GDE Multi-Flow, 2006), a width of 12" and that flow is
occurring tmder a gradient ofO.Ol.
Design Flow rate of strip drains:
q=®i
where:
q = flowrate per unit width
dh -1=-=0,01 dl
_ 0 = h·ansmissivity = 29 gpm/ft
To account for deh·imental effects on the geonet such as chemical clogging,
biological clogging, installation defects, and creep, partial factors of safety were used to
reduce the strip drain transmissivity. Using recommended pattial factor of safety values
from Koerner (1999) (AttachmentF, 2/4), the reduced transmissivity is calculated as
follows:
SCOJ49. Slimes Drnin Calc4B.200708JO.doc
; ' !:
. . . ... ·--' ··-----~·-------~-------~----·--·· ---· ~--~ ---. -· "-.--~ ~--' . -----. -----. -· --.... --"' ---~~--~-------~-~--~ ""····-·--~-~-~---~--~ ...,,_,_~,-.... ___, ............ ~--·-=~~----.. ·--·--_,__,_.._._~,.-..... ·:~
. -·: ..:
Geosyntec t>
consultants .
Page 5 of 10
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 08/30/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: lth/.1
Client: Denison
Min"'
Project: White M"'a MIII-
Ccli4B
e.l/ow = e.ul ""'S ""'S "''S l FSmxr. cnXr. ccXr. nc
1
where:
e allow= allowable flow
e ultimate = calculated value of flow
Project/ SC0349-01 Task
Proposal No.: No.:
FSIN = factor of safety for installation, 1.5 (CQA performed during installation)
FScR = factor of safety for creep, 2.0
FScc =factor of safety for chemical clogging, 2.0
FSac =factor of safety for biological clogging, 1.0 (low pH precludes biological
activity)
04
... ) The factors of safety are used to calculate the allowable transmissivity:
e = 29 gpm [ 1 l = 4.83 gpm
allow ft 1.5 X 2.Q X 2.0 X 1.0 ft
Using this transmissivity value, the average factor of safety for flow in the strip
composite is estimated to be as follows:
FS""' Qv = 4·83 gpm = 986 (Acceptable)
QR 0.0049 gpm
The average allowable flow rate is much larger than the average maximum flow rate,
even with the built-in pattial factors of safety. Furthermore, as indicated on Tables 3, 4,
and 5, the calculated flow rate within the strip drain decreases with time, which further
increases the factor of safety.
SC0349-Slimes Drain Calc4B.20070830.doo
,.
,-,
/
..........
<, .: ) -..' .. ~
·· .... /
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 08/30/07
Client: Denison
Mines
Project: White Mesa Mlli-
Ceii4B
Reviewed by:
Project!
Proposal No.:
Page 6
G. Corcoran Date:
SC0349-01 Task
No.:
Calculate the minimum required AOS and permittivity for filtration geotextile
component of strip drain
of 10
l'1.-blo1
04
The geotextile serves as a filter between the strip composite core and the tailings
material. The geotextile minimizes fine particles of the tailings material from migrating
into the strip composite, yet allows water to penetrate. Migration of fine particles would
have the adverse effect of decreasing the transmissivity of the strip composite layer.
To be conservative in these calculations, the tailings material soil is assumed to consist
of more than 20 percent clay.
The retention requirements for geotextiles can be evaluated using the chatt entitled "Soil
Retention Criteria for Steady-State Flow Conditions" developed by Luettich et al.,
(1991) (Attachment G, 1/3). This chart uses soil properties to evaluate the required
apparent opening size (AOS or 09s) of the geotextile: Using the· Soil Retention Chart,
the AOS of the filter fabrics shall be:
09s < 0.21 mm, which corresponds to sieve No. 70.
The petmeability of the filter fabric must be evaluated to allow flow through the filter
fabric. The following equation can be used to evaluate the minimum allowable
geotextile permeability:
(Luettich eta!. (1991), Att. G, 2/3)
where: kg~ permeability of geotextile (cm/s)
is = hydraulic gradient (dimensionless)
k,~ petmeability of the tailings material (cm/s)
·Hydraulic Gradient, i: Attachment G, page 3/3 from Luettich et al. (1991) lists typical
hydraulic gradients for various geotextile drainage applications. In this attachment, a
hydraulic gradient of 10 for liquid impoundment applications is recommended.
Soil Permeability, ks: A permeability of3.31 x 10"4 cm/s was assumed for the tailings
material, as previously defined.
SC0349. Slimes Drain Calc4B.20070830.doc
... -/
.... ''" .••.. , . -· -· -·------------· _. . --· ----· •• -·---------·--··. ~------------~·---~---•. -.-. ---.• ·-·-·-·-·······-·· ····-·-·-~·-·-··"-'-~'-'-"·~-·-.. '-'•"~--~ ··-·-.... ,.,,,.-.. ~.--· .. -..-.-..,'"·'·?-~ ... _,__ ...... ·.·-~···,···"'1'
Geosyntece>
consultants
Page 7 of 10
Written by: R. Flynn Date: 08/30/07 · Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1'!-b/o?-
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-0l
Mines Celi4B Proposal No.:
Therefore,
kg> i, k, = (10)(3.31x104 cm/s)
kg> 3.31 x 10·3 cm/s
Task 04
No.:
Koerner (1999) suggests applying partial factors of safety to the ultimate flow capacity
of the geotextile to account for clogging of the geotextile. ·Using recommendations
given in Table 2.12 on p. 150 of Koerner (1999) (Attachment F, 1/4), the following
paitial safety values were applied:
soil clogging and blinding:
creep reduction of voids:
intrusion into voids:
chemical clogging:
biological clogging (low pH precludes biological activity):
Therefore,
kg>
kg>
(3 .31 x ro·3)(1 0)(2)(1.2)(1.5)(1)
0.12 crnls
10(5-10)
2.0 (1.5 -2.0)
1.2 (1.0-1.2)
1.5 (1.2-1.5)
1.0 (2 -10)
The thickness of a typical nonwoven needled punched 4 oz/yd2 (135 glm2) geotextile is
approximately 40 mils (0.1 0 em), see Attachment H. Dividing the permeability by the
thickness ofthe geotextile results in a required minimum permittivity of 1.2 sec·'. The
geotextile used in this project has a permittivity of2.0 sec·1, which is greater than the
required permittivity. ·
Check Pipe Flow Rate
Based on calculations from previous sections, the maximum daily flow rate to the sump
is estimated to be 144 gpm (0.32 cfs) (Table 3). The capacity of the pipe is calculated
based on Manning's equation for gravity flow as follows:
Where
n = O.oi 0 (Koerner (1999), Attachment F, 4/4)
S =Slope of liner (ftlft) = 1.0%
SC0349 ·Slimes Drain Calc4B.20070S30.doo
'
j.
F
! ' !
;:
. j
···~·-··
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 8 of 10
Written by: R.Fixnn Date: 08/30/07 Reviewed by:
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/
Mines Ceii4B Proposal No.:
R;, =hydraulic radius, ft
Q = flow rate, cubic feet per second, rr /s
A = flow area, if
Assuming 4-inch pipe:
· A= n D2/4 = 12.6 sq. inches= 0.088 ft2
Rh =Area (n D2/4)/Wetted Perimeter (n D)
= D/4 = 1 in= 0.083 ft
G. Corcoran
SC0349·01
Q = 1.486 0.083%o.OlYz0.088 ft2 = 0.25 ft' = 112 gpm
0.010 s
Date: 12-I!M·
Task 04
No.:
Since 112 gpm is less than the maximum required 144 gpm, this calculation shows that
the 4-inch diameter slimes drain pipe is the limiting factor for dewatering the tailings in
the early phase of dewatering (high flow rates). However, it does not mean that the pipe
will be unable to handle this flow, but rather the pipe will require additional time to
drain. The additional time needed is computed in the following section.
Effect of Maximum Pipe Capacity on Drainage Time
The maximum capacity ofthe pipe is 112 gpm, as computed above. Assuming the cell's
. total lateral length of strip drain is 27,550 feet, the flow rate, per foot of strip drain is
calculated to be:
Flow Rate = 112 gallon • 60 min * 24 hr * lft3 * 1
min I hr 1 day 7.48 gallon 29/)77 feet
The time needed to de-water first layer is:
0.72 ft'
day
Volume (50 x 1 x 1 x 0.22) ft' Time= = Drain length x flow rate 1 fix 0.72 ft3 15.27 days
day
The difference between the maximum daily flow rate drainage time and the maximum
daily flow the pipe is able to deliver for the first foot is:
15.27 day-11.93 day (frrst row of Table 3) = 3.34 days.
SC0349-Slimes Drein Calc4B.20070830.doc
;-,
•• r !
"\
..
Geosyntect>
consultants
Page 9 of 10
Wrltlen by: R.FI~nn Date: 08/30/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: l'l./-J/o1
· Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project/ SC0349-0l Task 04
:Mines Cell4B Proposal No.: No.:
Therefore, the first layer will require an additional3.34 days to drain. The calculation is
repeated until the pipe's allowable flow capacity of 112 gpm is equal to the maximum
flow rate from the cell (Table 3). The additional drainage time needed for each layer is
added to the original drainage time of5.45 years. The results of this analysis are shown
in Table 3.
The total additional drainage time occurs over the· first 12 layers and adds 23 days
(0.06 years) to the computed drainage time. Including the effects of the maximum pipe
capacity, the cell will take an estimated 5.51 years to drain.
Effect of Precipitation on Drainage Time
To account for the effect of precipitation added to the tailings cell, the I-illLP Model was
used to estimate the average annual leakage through a 3 foot thick (tailings above the
liquid) layer of silty sand material (Attachment I). HELP Model default parameters
were used along with a maximum 16 inch evaporative zone (conservative for dry
climate) and weather data from Grand Junction, Colorado. The model was performed
for a 10 year period and included precipitation events ranging from 5.83 to 10.36 inches
per year.
The results of this analysis suggest that a maximum average annual percolation through
the 3 foot soil layer above the liquid will be approximately 12 ft3 per acre or 504 ft3
(3,770 gal.) for the entire Cell4B area of 42 acres.
The average flow rate during Cell 4B dewatering, as calculated fi·om Table 3 is equal to
78 gpm (112,320 gallon/day).
The time required to drain the additional volume of precipitation in the tailing is
computed using the following equation:
3,770 gal 0.03 days
112320 gal
' day
Time Volume
Flow Rate
The additional time that the pond will require to empty due to precipitation is
insignificant.
. SC0349 • Sl!mes Drain Calc4B.20070830.doc
:. :
j.
. ')
'··· ..
Geosyntec t>
consultants
Page 10 of 10
Written by: R. Fl~nn Date: 08130/07 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 1~-h/k
Client: Denison Project: White Mesa Mill-Project! SC0349-0l Task 04
Mines Ccii4B PtOEOSal No.: No.:
Therefore, the estimated time to dewater Cell 4B will be 5.45 years (baseline)+ 0.06
years (pipe limitations)+ 0.03 years (precipitation)= 5.54 years.
REFERENCES
Cedergren, H.R., "Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets," 3rd Ed., John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1989
(Attachment D)
GDE Control Products, Inc. November 2006. Accessed 13 March 2007
<ht1:p://www.gdecontrol.com/Multi-Flow5.html>
(Attachment E)
Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance Model, Engineering Documentation for
Version 3, EPA, 1994.
(Attachment C)
Koerner, R. M., "DesignJng With Geosynthetics," 41h Ed., Prentice Hall, 1999.
(Attachment F)
Luettich, S.M., Giroud, J.P., and Bachus, R.C., (1991), "Geotextile Filter Design
Manual, report prepared for Nicol on Corporation, Norcross, GA.
(Attachment G)
Amoco Fabrics and Fibers Company, (1991), "Amoco Waste Related Geotextiles. ".
(Attachment H)
SC0349-Slimes Drnin Calc4B.20070830.doo
i
;. •.
.:.
;
·----.. ----· .... -----· ---~ -~--...•• --
............ : .... / \....-""; -; ___ , .....
Table1
100% • • rSand , Sand ~ Sand 11111111 I IINITrl r Mill II f 1111 1 1
Silt "'"'
o%111111111 111111111 ]11111111 111111111 ]11111111 111111111 I
I -f I ~ ~ 90% I, ~~ ~
w70% J. ~ ~ -. u.. 60%
1-,_ 2so% _
w -(.) 40% ~ -lfao%
~% II 10
% U Jl I Ill
1000 100 10 1 0.1 O.ll1 0.001
%FINER•100~~AINEO GRAIN DIAMETER (MM) ,.,.,,
.·:-··-·
.. ~,
' ..... -.-·
Soli
med sand
fine sand
silt
silty clay
averaqe
geomean
Soil
SM ILS)
SM (LFS)
SMISU
SM IFSL)
ML(U
MLISiiJ
SC (SCL}
averaae
geomean
Notes:
Table 2
Tailings Parameters
Permeability11> Drain able PorosJtyl2l
(em/sec) (vol./vol.)
2.00E-02 0.35
1.00E-02 0.29
1.00E-04 0.14
6.00E-07 0.11
7.53E-03 0.22
3.31E-04 0.20
Permeability!'> Drainable Porosity1'J
(em/sec) (vol./vol.)
1.70E-03 0.332
1.00E-03 · 0.326
7.20E-04 0.263
5.20E-04 0.261
3.70E-04 0.231
1.90E-04 0.217
1.20E-04 0.154
6.60E-04 0.253
4.74E-04 0.246
(1) Source-"Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets", Cedergren, H. R.,
1989.
(2) Source -The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) Model, Version 3, EPA, 1994-Figure 2-Soii texture vs.
Moisture Retention.
(3) Source -The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance
(HELP) Model, Version 3, EPA, 1994-Table 1 -Low Density Soil
Characteristics.
,.
L'
!.,.
::-
' ! ' '
·.,,...._,.!
Permeability
{em/sec)
Permeability
(ft/min) ... ..
Avera SOil Poros·
Geomean Soil Petmeabi ..
Distance Between Drairu
Thickness of Unit
E-C
Drainage Path
Length {ft.)
Thickness
(VF)
Maximum De ~03 ·~
l of Stri Drain 29.9n ft
SC0349.Siimes Drain Drainage4B.20070904.xls
. :· :·
Ti.,dS3
White Mesa Mill
Cell 4B Slimes Drain
MaXimum Liquid Depth
Volume of I Time to
Q (cfm/ft) I Liquid Dewater
(CF/ft)_ ------·
Time to
Dewater
_.,,,.,
Total Flow I vo•ume ._
Rata (gpm) (gal)
.. ··:·.
Pipe
Limitati<
fdav~
22.86
' ··· ..... : ... :/ ..
9/4/2007
..-·-·· ...
'/ · . .__; .. TA:bi::~4
White Mesa Mill
Cell 48 Slimes Drain
I inniti
"·-.:~_f)
Permeability
(em/sec)
Perm~bility I P;th-L;;;th I Thickness I Q (cfm/ft)
~of
Liquid
(CF/ft)
Time to Time to
(ft/m.n) '" L {VF)
~ 19E-'
I oJ.o;, 1 t:;"'\J""t o.;.;~ lt:;-vot ..,_4Q .:J£T I 0.075-:
I 3.31 E-04 6.51 E-04 42.3 M I < M~
j.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.0
E-04 6.51E-04 41.7 <:: 6.51E-041 41.4
E-041 6.51E-04 41.2
J4
J4
28
27
26
5.6E
l:s-
~&€
v.voC-04 6.51E-04 40.7 24 4.46E-O
1•
Dewater
minNF/ft
:,137
18.555
1i
),565
1,196
1,927
715 I :-D41 6.51E-041 .. 40.. I -=1 .. . -
~ "'}ot~ nA ~ &:otr::: nA AI"\ '"7 "'~ 4.29E-Q4 1 I ~V,O
!.11E-04 26,7:
13.19
i2
~7
!8 •·
Total Flow Volume Removed!
Rate (gpm) (gal)
138.70 2,466.665
136.01 2,466,685
132.9-' ,., A~~ ~Ot::.
12
1:4_. __ 1 t ·--·~--
!,466,685
119.95 1 2,466,685
~466,665
!,685
~466,685
~468.665
~468,665 . ,.,.,. ""'"""'"
3.31E-s:;· if!>11=-MI-<!nP. .. ---, ?1 I ""1E-04 28,123 T--19.
08.:
04.•
100 ..
96.:
92.1'
. 87.7'
-46:9 20 3.72E-04 11 29,602 2o.5E ___ . ______ _
v.v ,~-04 6.51E-04 41.1 19 3.51E-04 11 31,312 21.74 78.78 2,466.685
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 41;3 18 3.31E-04 11 33,213 23.06 74.27 2,466,685
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 41.5 17 3.11E-Q4 11 35.337 "'A""A ~no.c '"'A""f':>t!'ot::
3.31E-D4 6.51E-04 41.8 16 2.91E-04 11 37,817 _ .. _ . ___
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.1 15 2.71E-04 11 40,627 28.21 60.72 2,466,665
3.31E-04 6.51E-04 42.4 14 2.51E-04 11 43,839 . 30.44 56.27 2.466,665
o "'~ 04 6.51E-04 42.7 13 2.31E-D4 11 ____ 47,546 33.02 _ ___§_1.88 2,46(l,665
:-o4 6.51E-D4 43.1 12 2.12E-D4 11 51,990 36.10 47.45 ..... __
~1 E-D4 6.51 E-04 43.6 11 1.92E-04 11 57,375 39.84 42.99 2,466,665
;-04 6.51E-04 44.0 10 1.73E-D4 11 63,691 44.23 38.73 2,466.685
:-04 6.51E-04 44.5 9 _1.54E-04 11 _ __ 71,572 ~.70 34.46 __ 2,466,68§_
=-04 6.51E-04 4S.o 8 1.35E-D4 11 81;423 5,___ _ . ______ _
:-04 6.51E-04 45.5 7 1.17E-04 11 94,089 65.34 26.22 2,468,685
E-04 6,51E-04 46.1 6 9.89E-D5 11 111,218 77.23 22.18 2,468,685
'04 6.51E-04 46.7 5 8.14E-05 11 135,199 93.89 1824 2,466,685
I ~;:~~t.Y~~:= t~~r~~~~:~:; 76A67,226 1
Average Soil Porosity 0.22
Geomean Soil Permeability' 3.31E-D4 em/sec
Distance Between Drains 50 ft
Thickness of Unit ft
Ave~ Depth 35 ft
Length of Stril' Drain 29,9IT ft
·.·\
SC0349.Siimes Drain Drainage4B20070830.xls 8130/2007
··-........ -.. ______ , ... ,-... -· .............. . "7•""""::'" ······ l..,.· .. ........ ·····.";'
··-._...· T~E!rls
White Mesa Mill
Cell 48 Slimes Drain
Minimum Liquid Depth
)
Permeability
(cmfsec)
_ _ u.-dmay~:: _ vu•ume of Time to Time to
Permea_b•lity Path Length Th1ckness Q (cfm/ft) Liquid Dewater Dewater Total Flow Volume Removed
(ftlmm) lft.l (VF) ICF/ftl lminNF/ftl ldavsNF/ftl Rate (gpm) (gal)
~-04 39.8 31 5.92E-04 11 18,584 12.91 132.73 2,466,685
. ~· 39.6 30 5.76E-04 11 19,107 · 13.27 129.10 2,466.-h~
E-39.4 29 .2,§1J!::-04 11 _.__19,666 __ 1;3.66 125.43 2466
31E-
3.31E-04
3.31E-
39.2 28 11 20,265 14.071 121.72 I ? 4F>F> 885
E-
E-
.31E-04
3.31E-04
3.31E-04
3.31E-04
.04
3.31E-04
3.
3.31E-04
3.31E-04
3.31E~
6.51E-C
).51 E-
t1 27 11 20,962 14.
38. 24 ~E-04
6.51 E-04 39.0 44RF-04
11
11
15.
15.1
23~48? .--16.29
17.05
10
105.14
100.50
6.51 E-04 39.0
).51E-04 39.2
2: z
2'
20
19
17.821 ~v.
18.76 M 0
1.51 E-04 39.3
).51 E-04 39.5
6.51 E-04 39.8
6.51 E-04 40.1
6.51 E-04 40.4
'1T
3.
).44E"
11
11
2844-41 19.75
093 20.90
23
6.51E-04 40.8 __ ___ __ .. --·-·-
6.51E-04 41.2 14 2.58E-04 11 42,599
Sf
l7
77.07
6.51E-04 41.6 13 2.37E-04 11 46,321 32.17 53.2S
3.31E-04\ 6.51E-04 42.1 12 2.17E-04 11 50,784 35.27 48.57
6.51 E-04 42.6 11 1.96E-04 11 56,059 38.93 44.00
3.31E-041 6.51E-04 43.1 10 1.76E-04 11 62,388 43.33 39.54
3.31E-04i 6.51E-04 <!3.7 9 1.57E-04 11 70,285 48.81 35.10
2.4668:
!,466,685
Rfi
24868.
685
24Fi6Ms
1~(;:-,:·.:~ .. i:;~i~~ijgyls.. ·,:'i.~~' ... :.iJ:'.'~~,§:;,~~\ 56,733,7 48
I ;:~.';;,~~::&:t;?~tf~ t}~:~~'.;;;~J~;\.:i~:, '~(.~l~~ I
Averaae Soil Porosity 0.22
Geamean Soil Permeability 3.31E-04 em/sec
Distance Between Drains 50 ft
Thickness of Unit 1 ft
Maximum Depth 31 ft
Lenqth of striP Drain '-29_,977 -ft
SC0349.Siimes Drain Drainage48.20070830.xls 8/30/2007
.. .;,:~·:rr.:·
i: ,,
1: ..... ,
' ·,.._..... .. ··:.:.._;/
.... ·-
EXISTING CELL 3
0
SCALE IN FEET
SLIMES DRAIN LAYOUT
CELL 48
BLANDING, UTAH
Geosyntect> DATE: sEPTEMBER zoo7
consultants PROJECT NO. SC0349
"''';.:r;.'. "'
,..··.
·F ·~.~··
fiGURE
1
,'''•
~~ .I"·
. '
,.. ,-;
"" ,...
II
Nf:'
~ il.' {I
'-' r 0 f ~
.f
\n
!!; + ~
11
,..1
'o
-'
6
'
.. ·,:
;;:
) ......
.... _ .. _
Geosyntec t> Writlonby. _g..,"'-;; ____ """~ 't/P'~":J<"""'"'"'-----""" oo ~vv-
consultants o•·· POOL Pro)O<t 11\ll'f\M -Ul\48 Pr•J-roJ'O"IN~ ~Ltl?-.1.19 TaskHo. _
~-... tlUUP=+=l=fR+~4-ff/tttttttttttltijj
\
1/
I
I' /
/
17 i'h
i r·
':)
·: . "·
n
;·l
{.·
. !
]
;l
U·
J
~J
•. J_
' . )
.'
; !
j
COLORADO SCHOOl. Of MINES AUEARCH INSTITUTe
EXBmlT 1
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION AND PREPARATION
CSMRI Sample 1
Sponsor's Designation of
Sample: Run-of-mine,
Date Received at Institute: .Tune 5, 1978,
Sample Weight;
Sample Containeri
Sample Description:
Method of Preparation:
100, 5ZO lb.
Two truckloads,
Mine ore •• estimate 5% + 10-l.n, material,
Largest boqlder • • 48 in, x Z4 in, x 14 in,
Only two or three rocks were greater than
36 in,
All +10-in, material broken to ·10 in, by sledge-
hanuner and jackhammer, The sample was
screened at 6 in. and 1-1/Z in, with the +6 .in,
fraction, put in barrels, and the -1/Z in, frac·
tion piled, The -6 in, +1·1/Z in, material was
screened at 4 in, and 1· 1/Z in, with the -6 in,
+4 in, and -4 in, +1·1/Z in, fractions barreled,
The additional -1-1/?. in, fraction was piled
with the previous -1-1/Z in. fraction, A screen
size analysis of the entire quantity of mill feed
matel'ial is presented in Exhibit 3, A summary
screen size analysis of the ore is as follows:
Screen P1•oduct
in.
Head (calculated)
-10 +6
-6 +4.
-4 +1·1/Z
-1-1/2
Weight
o/o
100.00
?.,92
9.48
15.30
7Z.30
;_:
-·1
C)__
. 'J
: __ /
:1
:'I
n I,
rJ
:·l
u
q L
~. ql
' ....
i1
!"!
J ••
i] c.
~J
u
n •.
]
... 1
)
· .... .-'
J
CO~ORADO SCHOOL OF MINES RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Sponsor's Designation o£
Sample:
EXHIBIT 1
CSMRl Sample ~
Crushed ore,
Date Received at Institute, June 5, 1978,
Sample Weight:
Sample Container:
Sample Desc:dption:
Method of Preparation:
47,380 lb.
One truckload,
Ore previously crushed to ~3 in,, maximum
particles approximately Z~ 1/Z in.
The ore was used as received.
i
:...._
_, .......
· . ....__.,. . .:-,_ '--' ~ "'----' L.....; '----~ ·· .. c/ t---.! ""----' '---...) '--..l -~ • ......._a ~ ; }..J'
Crlndiug TC-~:~t l, .A\ltogea.oos -· Fo'!c!. ~. stph: -
""""""' z
QR:!Nl>JNC 't£S'rS
DSM ~. b. Wi<1t:b:
DSM.~r~OpaQSl:lg', ~
Mq,oUl'od M£11 Power T~ {OI:I::I¢r :tam), kw1.
C~etfl:d :Mill PO"NU T=<: {cnnpty mill), ~
J'WUI 13. 1978 z
:RW'k--o!-ml:= ..
l.ZT ....
0.6 --Q:ro ll'obd Rate !M ~~(I) E~-!og ""' Swc.;o S=cer~ PSMS..... PSM..,..... ""' """• O!c~o MillW-Ru1111ir.~ Muto:r oe ..... ·6 :il:l. -10 1n.. """"""" OVa.."":!lew Unde....~ Lead
Clod< """" ll.ovolaticmu Xeu.dirlg T...,. -l-l/2. it:>. +l-l/2.1n. ...... ..... Scl1d# """"' SoU.&I Sol.id$ SOlida Salida Soli&:~ """"" ... .. , ~-v""'-Time~ g<U:./:rev ~_z_~ lb/l>:o ~~-L.lli!!:.----lL~-'L~....!L~J_J:M2:._J_
0'110 • .. --104 .. -----------------0915 ' 12:,2 12-,964 --3, 150 61Z ,., 116 " S,33S ------2 6-].'"6(2.) .. z.s~
100S " 8.7 -· --2-.-&80 "' ,., "' ,, --" ,,. so 3~348 57 .. z-sse
1030 so 6~8 --lOS 2,835 ... '" "' " -90 '" 70 3,591 ,. • no(Z) ,. z,asa
uoo IlO ,_, 12 .. 971 106 :Z,993 m "' "' 66 -----" 4.,':2-l S8 '""'' so ,,,...
"" ,., -----------------------------l14-2. ,., -------------·-----------mo 153 ,_, --"' 2.,993 6lz '" "' " u:.-szo 90 l.U.-1t 70 ..... ,, z,sas ---1230 "' •• o 12,'388 Ill Z,903 m '" "' .. 10,829 90 405 •• 6.-955 &o 4-.388 "' 2:,382
1301) = '·' --m 3,319: 61Z 380 ,,. " u.zsz •• 365 ,. 6~0i8 60 3,861 "· Z,:i7Z
13<5 "' -------------.. ---. --------1401) "' ••• .. m J,IUI "' 380 ll6 " u. 700 ,, lZZ " s .. ZZ-9 •• 3,996 •• Z,S'JiO -1415 '" 6.3 13,004 llZ z. 2'10 m .w. .lli. !§. ~ 2£ ---"!!. Zl. ~ a 2..")07 :!:1. 2.509 lS
A~l'~O 3,019 "" ,.. '" 65 10.7-U " <SO 69 4~SS'7 " S,S47 .. .....
'.,_..;.--
·~""
""""'"""'-
Mm dowu. OleYnt~~t!.. ...... ,.,.
Pump p~d. DSM :t-ot. --·
(ti M¢'..6t=c: -1~1/Z m., z.B'1o; -4 hi. +l-1/Z 1u., 1.0'7.: -6 !n. -s-4 11:1.., c • .es: ~.to tn. +6 ita.., o.~ A'll'o.ngo cb:y o= t.~ ;ral:a1 -l-1/Z i.~~o., Z,934.5Jll.~ -4. iQ, +1~1/! i.-a.~ &o5.9U./hro -6 il:t. -K :tl:l...,
376.8 l"o/hr; -10 -i,r.. +'-t-a., :tlS.O llJ.~ total., 4,032.~ lb/k, Za016 ~ lrtph. MtiL ..-ol.= .,a,d o!kst: 15%.
{::.) Exclnded*=v.~.
Fe4d btc, •tpll cb-n z.Ol6
Bl:lll Ch=go: No119
Cor;-actctCIMID.P<!Wln:TQ'<J(~mDl),lcw: 0,6
llui~OIUI Co=d:od ~ C!rcnla&.g Mill
l'owar · eo .... ampt:lou Lol\d l)lu~c
Clocl<: Wdg'bt~ SoU«.
...:r;,_
li.•~Piag
"""" ~
D<oo """"-rt..e/rav
lnr~OILB
0:::01111 i'CW~>r
(l»oto.: ;r~g) ...... (!:r= itlp\lt>ooWpot ~t Q:on-Net
k.wh:r 'k-ollu-/nt kwl=-/ct ~ __1..__ :Ro=un-lc::l
0910 ' """ 5 l2.Z ... , .... 1.31 1.-01 --" 100$ " 8.7 .... "-~S z.u 1.81 --"' . 1030 " ••• • 7.-6% s.ao z-.as . z..ss -..
1100 llO ,_, 1.91 6.10 '·" '·" --" ll;\5 145 --------~1$1i bo~t .UC.Yiltm:.
ll>O "' '·' 3.36 !..47 3.Zl ~-'11~) 162 .. 0 ..
lZSO '" 6.0 .... 6.73 '·" '-~(.2} !.83.0 ..
lSIJQ = '·" ._,. 6.47 3.21 z.nfZ) 145.0 6S ,., ... ------z:;tz) ---"Or!pl~ D:SM !oed pump.
lol-1)0(3) "' 6A S,1C '·" .... 79.0 6S
1-filS(J) "" 6.3 .. , '·"" '·" .!:!!(Z) ~ 6S
.A"ot-..go Z,')O o~.s
(1) Calcak!:c4 Su:tn o! ;Sweco OV<Q'IJ!:IO tmci!. PSM, ~ u-pe,rcoatage >;:( iJxy :r;niil !ocld.
(Z} Avenge!o:,po'II'I:J.r(Wt:.G.ve.~p.}: %.90kw:hr/st.
(3) ~=~
· '""·-·--........ ••••7"r.-··:-. -~ .... .. ....... .. .. , ........ _, .. ..... ,.,.):-·.· ' ·-·· . . :;;-·.·
--'
~ • •
• 0 0 • ~ • §
= ; : • • @ :
t
·•: .. :l"
:·l
<''l ,_!..,
\ .)
.• .. ,.
q ...
:·I
r·)
;,]
' 1
u
n
rj ..
. .q
I j
n
' I ·;
p u
q '·
q L
u
~]
i. \ ·' . ·-· .. ·
d
' ' -' -• --~ •-" ~--· • • •• ••--··-• ••" ••• '" " •• -,," " ' '' •' --•-• •--~-~· •• •''' •• • • • ' •~• • • • •-• • • ,,_,.,_, '•-"-"-•-·-•-• '---.•. •~.• •"->.-.•.•.-.'C.~<.-",•:• <-0•,,; > ..>. -•·M~ •• •"-> ·~ ~·-• Lo<,>_ .... -~"'~'."-'-'"" ',C,'o>. '•"•'·~~c··,•,·, "•'-',•.::•.
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MIN&S RESEARCtt INSTITUTE
EXHlBlT ll
Grinding Test 1 --continued
Procedure: Sample was wet screened on a 3Z5M screen, products dried,
and the +325M material dry screened using a Ro-Tap for 30
min,
Screen Si'lle Analysis /
DSM Screen !
Teat Product Undersize
Sample Time: 1415
Sample Weight, g, 4, 630.5
Screen Product Weight US )l~vf:
(Tyler) Mesh %
Head (calculated) 100,0
+28 1.2 No. '3!:>
-28 +35 3.4 No. 4D
-35 +65 !6,2 /llD. 10
-65 +100 14.0 Nc>. l!W
-100 +200 18.6 N~. u:o
-ZOO +325 7,1 No. '32.6
-325 39,5
(}TC
6)1o)ot-
····•. . ·.
'· . '-·~ t;"'-·-~ "--' \~-.:J-: r·-··-::---~ ..........., .-··-..........., r--;; r;::: ~h-·-"-t ~ : ~ r·~ "~ r.----:;
~ r-:; r····., c...;_) r--":::-'l ....... "'l _, :::::.::; ;-.~~· .. fl· :___.:;
Grinding "!'etJt Z
M!lJ-.
Bea.rin.&
""""""' Dl.::~c Mctc.r Ol1
Cl.ook
_,
:Ro:wolufumrJI R.,...,. Toxnp.
'I'i:no ~ ::.ee/%ev ~__:E._
!040 0 8.7 13,004 lOZ
IllO 30 s •• !01
1130 so S.> 106
1200 80 s.o lOS
12" 110 ••• l3.n~ lll
1>00 140 ••• 112
!.330 170 ••• 113
1<1100 wo .. , 113
l4i15 Zl5 s.o 113
1430 zzo s.o ll,C44 m
Aver.38'0
,_
Feed .Rato,. stpb: c.-,
B~Charge:
-1-l{Z in. +I in. :Balls, lb: -:z. iu... +1-1/2 i;ll., :BQlls, lb:
3 in.. Balls, Ib:
DSM Seroen, ill. ~
DSM Sc=--u Ope~, =-
=·
Mea.scrcd Mill P~ "rue (e::c.pty mill), ):;w;
Co=ected :Mill J?(l~r 'r:o (empty x:c!ll). kw:
0:'~ F-ct RU£1 ~all rocoived}(1) """-........ -6 in.. -10 in. Dioelm1"&!
.lctllO ]"· 1978 z.o
Rnn-o£-:c:Jine
'Xe~ 301 .. 8 .tb; z,-~ mill volm:ru:
114. .. 5
151.3
36 .. 0
1Z
l.Z7
Z.06
0.6
Sweeo Se:rerllt~. DSMSo:t:oeu
O'l"e:nm::e ~
DSM ~n l4ill Mm
tT:~de:efl-ow w~ Load
-1~1/Z. iu.. +1-l/Z i-;,_. i4 in. +"!c. Scili"c SoHds SoHds Solids Sol:ida Scilida Solids: Solido ::Mirt4:t." ~ V~Cll.a=A
ll>Q;:-"'IE:!: lb/hr lb/ll):' ~ ~ J_ ~ _ .. _ lJ>/U J_ ..JYJ=_ J_ ~ _..11-"""""""'
--Sl2 380 u6 -"" ·-·--------95 3.017 St=tmlll. ·-61Z 380 116 ·----------2,989<2> .. Z,636
$,060 61Z 3$0 11& 6Z 8.147 50 ... 74 1,565 54 84 Z,668 ..... 61Z 380 116 63 6;577 67 653 71 1.150 ---sz 2.,604
3.,105 61Z 380 ll6 .. s.467 .. 60S 13 1.2S.l ---sz >.604
3,139 612 3SO 116 63 6.9-17 6Z >91 13 Z,lOZ ,., 3.6941 ai Z,!l?Z
3_Z.63 612 380 116 66 8,4.94-.. 595 69 :s.sn 56 3 .. 881 81 2,,57Z
Z.98l 6U 380 116 66 9~0Z9 .. 6M 11 2~939 sa 3.680 ., z.s-n
2,869 6l.Z 380 116 66 10 ... 098 .. 547 70 3,119 ss 3,811 79 z .. soCJ -· Z.993 ill. ~· .lli. ~ 8.483 !i m .ll 3.259 E s.sbS JJ. Z.509 ' -· E"Od of tq!t. .
3,03Z 61Z 3SO 116 65 8."?.17 6Z ... n z.373 57 3_.7Z6 S3 Z.6Z6
(l) Moist~G:: -l-1/Z Ut .. , Z.&%; -4 in. +1 .. 1/Z. in.., l .. O"/o: -& ~ +" :t=. .. , 0,.8,;.; -10 in • .;.6 in., 0-7% .. A~~ d:r:y Q%Co :Coed X'~ -l-l/Z :1:1., Z,947.0 lhr.or. _., ~ .. +1-l/Z i:a., 605.9 lb~
-6 it:, +4 in., 376 .. :& lb/ht': -10 in. +bin ... US.O lb/la"; ~ 4:00M. 7lb{b:r, z .. ozz dry .st;pl:L. Mm. vol.ame enol o! test: 9% ..
(Z) Exc:"11:1acd. :!rom -:r.ver.tg&.
Feed Jta.t¢.. ot:ph oh-r. z..ozz
:S.dl~e: so1 .. t lh.z~mm.~
Conec:ted MID Pow~ T~ (~ ~} ... kw: 0.6
Icota.c.tancotlliil ~C#C~~ -Runcillg Dioe Gros11 POWC% "~" Co!UIID:O.E;tiotr.
Clock """' Re~o.# (:metll!r' %C;~g) {:&=. input-®tpttt etll:"RI) ., ... Not
_!5!o_ ~ sec£ -rev """" kwh< lcWh/.:t lc:Wh/r:t
···-·"'-·"---·:.~.~---~·~ ...
1040 0 a.1 5 .. 9.6 .... Z..09
1110 30 s.z 9.97 7 .. 93 S.9Z
1130 50 S.> '·" 7 .. 78 3 .. as
1200 so s.o 10 .. ,6 8,.25 4 .. os
1>30 uo ••• 10 .. 80 8 .. 63 4; .. 27
1300 l<O ••• 1!1 .. 80 8.63 4.2.7
1330 ,.,. ••• lO .. SO 8 .. 63 4 .. Z1
1400 zoo ••• 10~58 a.-;4 4:.l7
l41SC3l ZlO 5.0 10 .. 36 s.zs 4 .. 08
1430(5} Z30 5.0 10.3& ..... 4 .. 0&
..Ave~e
{ Q c.u.c~ Swn or SWeco .o"VOr.ri=e ;or.od DSM ovw#ize ns: a. percer.t;,.ge d 1hy mill :!eed.
{Z) Ave:rugo :for ll'I)"!::::U" {l:st two rca.&p): 3 .. 78 ~br/d.
(3) .s=nplc ::e-cn,.
(4) Qmittedl:roxn a.ven.ge.
1 .. 79
3 .. 6J s.ss ....
!f.97
3 .. 97
3 .. 97
3 .. 88 3.7&~
3 .. "l&(Z)
5.78
·.":·
Circula.tiuz
I.ozd
Weight%
dFecd.Ul
--·-
s;:o<"'l
9S .. O
S'l .. O
9Z.O
~
91 .. 8
Mlil
"''"'""'''' Soli .. ..
6Z
63 .. •• 66
66 •• 65
-:-·:·· ..
:.._:r
• 0 ~ • • 0
~ • • ~ • ' • ~ : = > • • • " = " c :
~
;: t
.);
r.:...:__ \__...--I --c:::::; ·----= c.:::; !r.'-'."'i' "'---" :-·~~ ,.--'!! /4 t.--·•1 -...__., ----~ ..._...__, ._.. -·--, ~ .,
'--' c::J ....... ~·~ :_.....; ~--J~--A !' ......... , : .. : .. : )~
EXHIBIT Z
Grinding Test Z --continued
Procedure: Sa.m.ples were wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried, and the +325M material dry
.screened using a Ro-Ta.p for 30 min.
Screen Size .Analysis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen Circulating
Test Product Mill Discharge Oversize Q_yersiz_~. ____ '(1ndersiz_e Load __
Sam.ple Tin:J.e 1415 1430 14i5 1430 1415 1430 1415 1430
Sample Weight, g: 1, 058.8 1,2.06.6 669.3 979.0 915.6 1, 106.8 888.1 932..3
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(Tyl.,.r) Mesh % % % % ~ % % % %
Head (calculated} 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 2.3,8 21.6 65.5 71.8 40.4 37.6 z.o 1. 7 43.4
-2.8 +35 6.8 6.4 2.5 1.6 8.4 9.9 5.3 4.3 8.1
-35 +65 13.5 13.3 4.2 3.6 8.8 12.0 17.2. 16.6 9.4
-65 +100 9.4 10.2. 3.Z 3.0 4.7 7.6 13..6 12..9 5.7
-100 +ZOO 11.9 13.4 5.0 5.0 7.3 10.3 17.6 17.0 8.3
-200 +32.5 4.Z 5.9 3.0 2.1 1.6 4.7 7.0 6.3 3.1
-32.5 30.4 Z9.Z 16.6 12..9 2.8.8 ·17.9 37.3 41.2. zz.o
-,; :··: .. ·-· ·. , ..................................... : .. ---~ ... -.... -... . ',>.'. ..
... 1
~
0
0 .-
0
"' ,.
" 0 .,
" :r
0
0 .-
0 ...
;: z m
"' "' .. .. m ,.
"' " ::
z ., ... ::;
c ... ..
> I .,..
i: ~ ' ,.,j
l
, .. ) : __ ... _
\,~ ___ ·:
n
l '
~1 ' i
n
.. l ..
t:
n
ll
q . )
n
'j ' t
u
u <
u
u
: )
~J
•t
I
··-----~ !
~J
t I J ll tIll I~
• I
M ~ " u ~ n
" 0 00000 I ~ f I t I I> I • I o o
I I~ I t!gg:~!i::': t:
~~*I • ~~:4lti!A ,;,;..J, ·~~~~~
i i
!
\'" .... , (_;: c.:_: c::::: c::: r;--":' ~~;: c:-.J \~ ::: -~ :---·, r-.. -....., ...____. ....... ;
~ :-···-! .. -~~:'!
~J :···-· :"'; :j.,
\...:..:.:~
EXHIBIT 2
Grindit;g Test 3
Procedure: Sa=.ples were wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried, and the +325M material dry
screened using a Ro-~ap for 30 min.
Screen Size .Analrsis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen Circttla.ting
Test Product Mill Discharge Oversize Oversize Undersize Load
Sa=.ple Ti=e 1430 1445 1430 1445 1430 1445 1430 1445 --
Sample Weight, g: 1, 174.9 1,310.3 1,365.7 1,223.1 1, 183.4 1,245.5 850.1 962.4 --
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(Tyler) Mesh o/o % % % % % % %_ %
Head (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 27.8 25.1 65.0 67.5 47.4 33.3 2.4 1.9 43.7
-28 +35 6.5 7.1 1.8 2.0 9.1 7.9 5.7 5.0 7.6
-35 +65 12.8 14.6 3.7 4.0 12.4 13.2 18.1 21.0 11.7
-65 +100 9.2 9.0 3.1 3.4 6.5 8.5 14.8 16.0 7.0
-100 +ZOO 11.4 13.5 5.4 5.5 8.9 9.9 15.6 13.5 8.9
-zoo +325 4.8 3.4 3.4 3.3 1.6 3.3 5.9 4.5 2.5
-325 27.5 27.3 17.6 14.3 14.1 23.9 37.5 38.1 18.6
. ·······------~····-··-•"'··--··-----·";'''\'. '·";. ·-.·.··· ···.-·-·
':""" •• 1 ___,
" 0 r
0
"' l>
" 0
"' " X
0
0
r
0 .,
;:
:z m
"' "' "' "' m
l>
:11
" ·"' z en ... :::; c: ... m
> l ()0
~:
,).:
-I
., ''\ .. \
' J
n
:l
:}
i l
ll
[J
f] L.
[l
" . r."1
( ) I
[J
]
u
u
u
u
u
'
·'··l. . I
I
""" .~-
u
~QLOIA(Io tOKIIOL 0' HliiU JIUtAROII lfllttl'\ll'f
§!j1 "'I I I I 1: ll I I l ~ l J
~~j~
I flil ·~
~ ~~ ~ :;; 1~:~ ti •• .. ou 11'1 ,., .0 ~;tO u~
~ ~ ~
u ~ ' li
l
j
1
ll I I I~ I I Ill I
f l !a~!a It$~ l $$!:!
~:!. lltOOIOCijOOOl W
I I ~~s ~~~ ;iii ~
l~fi~~IHI~~~~ ~ Nf'>INN NN NrJN N
.~:t:~i!:.!!:&:,:t:it 'JNJrS'J.J'A..iJ
i: ,.
I
~;.
' ..
~'-""' ~,.. '----\...:._....~ . ··n ·· ....... ·
~ ........ ... . "'~'"';' '"--' c.:: ,...... -···} ~
........ ~ ...
j~ r-·: .. "--'--'
_._ .. ..,
"--'
... --'1'1
.__.._j
·;· .... ,.
--'
, __ _ \:....__.;. .___; ._ '---' -'--'
EXEIBIT2
Grinding Test 4 --continued
Procedure: Samples were wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried, and· the +325M =ate rial dry
screened using a Ro-Tap for 30 min.
Screen Size Analysis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSM Screen Circtil.ating
Test Product :Mill Discharge Oversize Oversize Undersize Load
Sa:c::lple Ti=e 1140 1415 1400 1415 1400 1415 1400 1415 --
Sa:c::lple Weight, g: I, 139.4 886.7 715.4 726.2 1,152.9 1,020.0 763.8 769.4 --
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(Tyler) Mesh % % % o/o % % % % %
Head (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 15.3 13.1 86.5 91.8 39.1 43.1 2.7 2.7 55.5
-28 +35 5.8 5.2 0.3 0.3 8,9 7.6 4.9 4.6 5.9
-35 +65 17.8 17.9 0.9 0.5 14.9 12.7 18.6 18.6 9.9
-65 +100 11.1 u.s 0.7 0.3 6.8 6.3 12.5 13.3 4.7
-100'+200 15.8 '16.7 1.6 0.7 8.8 8.9 18.6 19.1 6.6
-200 +325 7.7 6.4 0.9 0.4 3.3 4.1 8.1 6.3 2.8
-325 26.5 28.9 9.1 6.0 18.2 17.3 34.6 35.4 14.6
.. .... ,_,_,,.~ .. -........... "---:"''/-"" .. "' --. ... ... . ·····-· ·~·-.--~ .................... . . :;·.;.··.:-:~ .. , .. ·~·.-· . .
.____!
(')
0 ... 0
::0 > 0
0 .,
(')
::1:
0
0 ...
0 .,
3: z m .,
"' m .,
m > "' C'>
::1:
z ., .... :::;
c .... m
> I ...
0
' ~·:·:
......
t:...:::.:: .\ .. ___,L c-·o ..,... .... M .... "--"-' . F"'~ C""; c::: { 00 "M"": ·---·---· .. :'": '-,._...... ......... ("·-· ~, ~ ~---·, .... "'\ :..:.....__; :_:._J :::.::.:::J ;_ ,:_)J ~
Crindio.g 'l:est S
R'Cl.Uldug
Clock 'l'h:a.c
~~
0840
0910
0930
1000
1030
1035
1<>40
1100
113()
ll55
IZOO
IZ3o
1300
1330
1.345
1400
1~30 , ....
1500
1510
1513
lSZZ
15Z9
1536
1537
Ave:rage
0
30
so
80
110
115
llS
1>5 , ..
190
,~.
zzs
Z5S ...
300
31S ,.,
360
375
>SO
388
397
•••
411
<lZ
Diroc M~tu.:e-
Itevolation::: Readia£:
~~e/re~ ~
6.7
6.3
6.z
'·'
'·' 6.6
6.7
'·' 6.6
6.>
6.5
6.1
6.1
6.0
5.7
13~136
l3, 1S4
,_,,
Fee~ Rate, :rtph::
ore,
ElC!!lBlTZ
J'uuo 19, 1978 z.o
Crari:b.cci
-·
:san Cl:la.:-ge:
-1-l/Z in~ lt:II.D.4, lJ;,:
'l'ol:al 301 .. 8 lb. Z1o mill vc1.a=e
116.5
Mill-
-Z it:l .. +1-l/Z in. :Salls, lb:
3 h. :a IIlla ~ lb:
DSM S=c.o.a~ in. ~th:
.DSM Sere-en Op~. =:n:::
Me:.u:~MDl.l'<I'WeX' T~ (ex:a.ptyeill), kw:
Cor.r:oetcd MOl Po-l' Tare (enpf:ymill), kw;
151 .. 3
36 .. 0
IZ
l.2T
2:.06
0.6
Bea.:rlng O:r:oe li'eed bte MUl $We~;:oQ Se::eolsl:l. DSM ~ DSM Sc:r:eoa.
Oil (as received)(l} Diseha....=ge Qve%dze Ov'erllow Unde%'fl.ow
'l'cmp. -3 W~ SolidiJ $oliCUI $o1ie.8 Solid!: Solidll Solidu Sol.ids Sol:WG
Mill
'Mill W~:r-I.oad
Meter !tate Vol.l:l:me
___2_ ,.,. _!h._ 1!!ll!!:. _!h._ 1!!ll!!:. _!h._ 1!!ll!!:. _!h._ 1!!ll!!:. -"-~ ___1t_ Rem=b
90 ..
9Z .,
,. ,.
97
100
103 , ..
104
1M
lOS
lob
107
3~62:3
3,960
3,80'3
"·Z30
4.298
4.320
3,533
4,016
4,005
>,6<.5
4,005
4,!40
3,713 .....
3.-690
,3,934
67 s. 744 -48
66 6, 663 45
S6 ~.578 15
66 4,99P 38
66 5.C49 42.
63 3-,856 37
6Z 3,894 Z7
66 4,693 29
68 9, oss 34
63 4,139 3Z
64. 4, 7Sl '34
63 4~820 J3
62 ..\,O!S 31l
63 4.139 36
64: 5,173 >S
356
"'' 6S
lSZ
239
zoo
101
Ill
113
IS<
I<>
1~3
lSZ
"'
183
67 3~SSS
70 z~o~
70 347
15 346
7Z 7Z~
15 -:oM
73 394
1Q SSl
6S z.6n
7l z.so
n z:ss
69 '598
71 =
70 l~3Z3
71 1,087
&o z .. 970
-66 4r~077
s~ $.4rs2.
62 4.241
62: 4.101
61 3~870
ss 3,445
61 3,870
64 3., 744
5'9 '3.45Z
57 3,104
59 3,505
56 2~696
ss z.696
59 3,516
15 2:.3~
71 'Z,Z55
68 2.,l59
66 2:,.096
68 2,159
69 Z,19l
69 2:,191
6G 2,032
bS 2.159
.ot 1, 937
6S 2,159
69 2.191
69 2.191
69 Z,l91
69 2,191
68 2,165
7
l>
LS
15
stutmm.
Sl.wJ: down -oat d foect.
,_ """-
-· -·· Sa=.:plc.
"""""'· Shnt down ..
CoUeetio.g x:c.m dioc:ba:ge ~;~:ttnpl#..
SecOXI.tl b=eL.
'l'biri b:a.r.r.eL
Bopper went empty ..
"""'"""""""-
(I.} Moicta-re; -3 itt.., z.o,-o. Ave::;tgo drr o1:e teed::-~ ·3 ~-· 3, ass Ib/l:Jr. 1. 9ZS dry :ttph. l£11 ~ ct1. of teot: l5o/,.
.... ''';.'. ·.·.~
. ' --·
• 0 r • • > 0 0
0 • 0 ~
0 • • ~ • ~ : ~ • • z ~ ~ ~ •
~
~
r: ·~
.. l
' I
·. _____ .....
n
1
:J
:·l ...
L!
'"j j . ! ,.
r•
L.l
'"'·)· \
[J
u
u
ll <."
--:··:\
.. I . 1 ··-..........
N
I
.. ·--~-~ -~--------------------------·---------··· ----·------~---·~.------------.---------·· ... ---··· ··-----~~~--~~-·-· --~----------. --·-·-·---~--~~--.-.-. ···-·-------------------~·-·--.,. .... ., .... ,_., ___ .~,··-r·
1 "
~~~
l!~l
HI
OOLQIIADO tOHDOL Or ~llfiS JIEUARIHI IIUYITUYI
~~ l'1 ~
g ~~ t1 ~ Mi ~! ~~ 11 ~
t·n
~~ t1 ~
'
or-. ... ,.~o..p ciMJ!icii~~
It'' oMoo~ '·-;· ··-~ r-·--· [._ \ ............. ....
~'l'•ot~
Mlll-....... ,
1"""""' ,., Ml)t.% Oil Cl~k "'""" Revcilul:touu s...u., ~-.
c;-··--'-'-c.: .,___.
:0~11!!,
Faed..Ril.to. ~
"""' Ball<=h=C<=l
-l-l/2il:r-+l:;lo... ~. lb: -z !D .. -tl·l~ in. ll.allcr, lb:
3 m. n;..Ib. Ib:
DSM Scucm., m. 'Width:
DSM Sc%cec. O;?coing#", ~
,/ ·• ,
··~..._./"'
""""""'
Ml<asU::l'Cii :MlU ~ T3l'e fempty=!ll), J<:w::
C<ln'Oet.d .MiD. Powi"-X' 'l'ue {en:r;pty=ln}, kw;
~ :F0<1-d :gu.tc {.u ro:cei~{l)
_ . .....,
'----'
JW1C zo. 1978
Z-S
~--o:<C-~
,...._
;___.) -:---~ ;
'--'
T<obl: 30t.a lb, 2%lDW. ~
11-1.~$
151.3
36.0
lZ
l.Z7
~-<16 0,6
SN== l>SM"=a ... ,.. ..,,_ .. 10 ill .. Mill.Dttl~ """""""' O"""""' -J.-I/2 in. +1-l/Z in. ....... ...... .,. .. Soll<o . ..... .,.... ...... ......
; ··:· ') .... .,
~
DSM:~an ,..,.,
..... ,
~
Mll1w-., .. Solid<> ,..,., R ...
.·····.
~ \ . )· · .... .:_./
""' """"' v.._.
....!!!!>a. ---"!!!!--see/"J;GV ~ __ •F __ ...l1!l!!!:._ .....!l!lls,_ .!!!~!!!:. .illl!I.. J.__ lb/ln" J.__ ..ru!!t-___!L .!hl!!!:. --l\._ .!hl!!!:. --l\._ ~ -L-~
0820 ----------------------- ---- ------(Orltul '®t)-_,mOl.
092$ 0 ·----·---------------------- --
.......... ..,,. 5 ••• 13.195 82 -768 474 219 -· -----· ------"" .....
1000 " ,_, --so --768 474 219 .. ll,UI"6 60 "" 71 4.090 61 5,137 .. 2;,699
l03G 65 '·' --82 3,713 76S 47< '" .. 9,742 ,. "' .. 4,896 61 3 .. 48.6 .. z.668
llOO .. s.z --., 3,845 "' 474 "' " 10,4.90:. 60 608 .. ll,.6S1 61 4,255 85 Z.,699
li3S 130 5.~ --.. 3,510 768 474 "' 66 7.')60 59 '" .. 3.'133 61 4,ZSS .. Z,668 Z5
"'" 155 ,_, --S7 3,758 768 ... .,. .. 1o~ssa " 487 .. 4,651 60 3 .. 699 85 ~.69? mo 185 '·' --.. 3,42.0 768 474 219 .. 10.037 55 ,., " , .. 914 60 ._, .. •• 2,826
1245 ... S.l --88 S.,4ZO 763 47< "' 67 9.'150 52 714 •• ··= .. <.275 •• 2.&6 ----1300 215 s.o --,. 3~600 76& 474 Z19 67 ll.1S9 S2 .,., '' 6. .... 81 S2 s..6Z.7' 85 :..699 ----1330 Z<5 s.o 1.2,Z36 ')Z -76a <7< 219 67 8,')24. 60 1,337 .. 4.CG'I 60 3,780 .. z,m ----1337 ,,_ --- ----------------------27 ~41:1-.
.Av=gc '3,607 76S 474 219 67 10.022: 5S 6.6 " -4,52.'1 61 4,l3S " :. .. 112
{1} Moi$t'!l...-.e.: ~l~l/1. in,, 2. .. 3%1 --4 j.c.. +1~1/Z. iu, • 1,0%; ..Q ia. +4 iu., 0,8';0; ~10 :!1:1 • .f6 i.u..• G,1~ ./LVGz:a,;<= <l;r:y ON fecd..rfl.tv,: -1-1/'2'.. ~~. :5.,$2.4lb/hr; 1m. +1-l/Z it!.., '760,3 J.b/.b:t; -61!:1.. i4 hi.,, 47a.Z
lb/l!.x'; -x.o ill~ +6 ia., Zl7.S Ib/br. 'l'o~ 4,m 1h/b:'~ :>.,486 ~ ctp:h.. MiUvol'l:lmo c.nd ot tast: ~-
···-·-···-·--------~······
:F'OG4ltata, .a:tph (d:y}: z..~a6
:&n Cb.=.zgc: 301.8 lb, 2S of >:!:Ul1 vo1m:t..e:
CC!l;;;'ee:bad. Mill Powe7 'X:are (=:pty =ill), kW: 0.6 ,.........,_ ~oaa Cettcctllld. ,_.,
ll.~r; ' D!ae Croce Pci'Wa:l:' ·-· Coa!!:!'!:.:!EefO'D.
Clook = B;c.vo~ -"""""<> (~ i'IIJ:IC't-outpat e"urvo) G..~• N .. -· ~ ti<!.C.!¥: ..... ""'"" """" Whr/81:: ~
08ZO ---------.... ----------0930 ' 6-S 7.62 s.so Z.33 z..09
100.;) " 5.9 8.78 6.87 %. .. 76-z.sz
1030 .. ,_, t;.78 7.7$ '·" 2.!>2
1100 95 5.0 9 .. '91 7.9z 3.18 ._.,.
ll3S 130 ,_, 9.97 7.9:1: 3.18 ....
l%00 15S ,_, 9.97 1.92. 3.18 ,_,.
lZ30 185 5.1 1Ct.l6 .... J.ZS 3.t1I
IMS(J) zoo S.l 10.16 :8.09 ,_ .. :S.tll
1300(3) 215 s.o J.G .. 36 8.2:& 3 .. 3Z 3.0S(Z.}
1~30' w.> ... to.x; 3.~6 '·"' ~)
1337 Z52 -------
Aw,... ....
{ll ~ed, &l:xxl.o!Svroco ~ :Uid OSM~ u aporcellt:gcl o£dry=illfee:cL.
(2) A~o:t J.w: poWCI:' {two ~&p): 3.0& lavb:-/~
(3) St=plo =·
: ..... ·
c.,...,...
L0>4
We1;ht"" ofFoo:~aU)
------lOS.O ....
87.'(1
'98.<0
93-0 l<()l.i)
!44.0 --
103.,
-·-··.'-·.·
""' Di< ........ ..,.. .. R-.o
-.,.....,.,. -Sb.:l:tk1114 • --•• •• 67 .. .. ..
67 61
67
Em'teltut..
"..:_]
. 0 t ;
0 0
; 0 ~
~ • ~ .
~ • • • ~ •
~
L-.: ·~-;._. L...:: :!'"""....,. ~ r.-··-·" '-'---' c-·-~..,. ,__;.....;
Grinding Test 6 --continued
r'"""' ........., ~
, ...
f'·-·-~ ';~;; ............ ._
'--'
,.. ..... _ ....
'---' ---· -''"" :.--> ::...:::.J ~-· ., :._P
EXHIBIT 2
Procedure: Sam.ples were wet screened on a 325M screen, products dried, and the +325M :material dry
screened using a Ro-Tap for 30 min.
Screen Size Analx;sis
Sweco Screen DSM Screen DSMScreen Circulating
Total Product Mill llisch.arg.,__ ~_Oversize Oversize Undersize Load
Sam.ple Time _ 1245 1300 1245 1300 1245 1300 1245 1300
Sam.ple Weight, g: 1, 258.8 1,237.7 673.8 642.6 1,361.9 1,079.3 832.1 918.1 --
Screen Product Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(Tyler) Mesh % % % % % % % % %__
Bead (calculated) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
+28 21.0 18.4 64.8 70.7 32.9 23.1 1.3 1.0 32.9
-28 +35 6;4 6.5 1.9 1.2 9.4 8.5 3.9 3.7 8.1
-35 +65 13.9 15.1 3.8 2.7 12.8 14.3 16.5 16.7 12.2
-65 +100 10.5 11.4 3.2 2.2 8.8 8.6 12.4 14.5 8.0
-100 +ZOO 13.3 14.2 5.4 5.0 ll.8 14.2 20.3 18.5 12.0
-ZOO +325 5.5 5.6 3.1 2.2 4.8 3.7 5.3 6.7 4.1
-325 29.4 28.8 17.8 16.0 19.5 27.6 40.3 38.9 22.7
;,, "• ··:,.·.·:· .... , .... .;':;.·: ....
. _ __;
" 0 r
0
"' )>
0
0
"' " "' 0
0 ,...
0 .,
;:;
z m
"' "' m
"' m
" "' <> ·"' z .. .... ::;
c: ... m
> I ..... .,.
___ , ......
. \
. · ... _.i
... )
/
• •• • • ·-• ••-• •••-•••••••••••• • • • ••••••• , • .,.,, .• , .... -. • •' •••• ••"••'• "''•"'•'•"•"~•"•' "-'•~• ••·~·.•.~•...-,o~.o.~·.•; •·•> ,._ • '-" •,,',,A"••O."·'·'·""''•'··<·~''·'>'• _,,--.'--'•~•'•••~·-•·-~ • ._.,,~ 'i-1
Sediment Description Page 1 oflO
Sediment Description and Classification Background
U.S. Standard Sieves
Note that the same size mesh can be a differing sieve number depending on the Sieve manufacturer
(Tyler vs. ASTM)
%~!:!) ~~ ASTM·Ell ~~~ DIN-41881
I flm II Mesh II No. II Mesh II rnm I
I 5 25oo II II 25oo II o.oo5
I 10 t25o II II 125o II o.o1o
I 15 soo II II soo II o.ot5
I 2o 625 II I 625 II o.o2o
I 22 I II o.o22
I 25 II 5oo I 5oo II o.o25
I 28 II II II o.o28
I 32 II II II II o.o32
36 II II II II o.o36
38 II 4oo II 4oo II 4oo II
4o II II II II o.o4o
45 II 325 II 32s II 3so II o.o45 1
so II II II o.o5o I
53 210 II 210 II 3oo II I
56 II o.o56
63 25o 23o 24o II o.o63
I 11 1 II o.o11
I 75 II 2oo 2oo 2oo II
8o II II II o.o8o 1
9o II 110 II 110 II 11o o.o9o
1oo II II II o.1oo
1o6 II 15o II 14o II 15o
112 II II II 0.112
12s II J.l5 II 120 II 120 II o.125
I 14o II II II II o.14o
I t5o II 1oo II 1oo II 1oo II
II II II II
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm
. ·-·· .. ·~-··---·~-·---··-. -· --~ --' . '····---····-~· -.. ·--~--·--.. ~ ---· . ·-·· . " -... -· --. . -· ................ ,_ .... _ ...... ~---.·.-. _,.. .......•... _.,, ,_.__, ___ ._ .-.-, .. ,_ .. ,,.
Sediment Description Page 2 oflO
I 160 II II II 0.160 I
I 180 II 80 80 II 85 II 0.180 I
I 200 II II 0.200 I
I 212 65 70 II 72 II I
I 250 60 II 60 60 0.250
280 II 0.280
300 48 II 50 52
315 II I I 0.315
355 42 45 II 44 II 0.355
400 II II 0.400
I 425 35 40 II 36 II
I 450 II II II 0.450
I 500 II 32 35 II 30 II 0.500 I
I 560 I II II 0.560 I
I 600 28 II 30 II 25 II I
630 II II 0.630 I
710 24 II 25 22 II 0.710 I
800 II II 0.800 I
850 20 II 20 E:::]l . I
I 900 II I 0,900 I
1000 16 II 18 II 16 1.0 I
1120 II II 1.12 I
1180 II 14 II 16 II 14 I
1250 II II II 1.25 I
I 1400 12 II 14 II 12 1.4 I
I 1600 II II 1.6 I
1700 10 II 12 10 I I
1800 I II II 1.8
2000 II 9 II 10 8 II 2.0
2240 II II II 2.24
2360 II 8 II 8 7 II
2500 II II II II 2.5 I
2800 II 7 II 7 6 II 2.8
3150 II II 3.15
3350 II 6 6 5 II
3550 II II II 3.55
4000 II 5 5 II 4 II 4.0
I 4500 II II II II 4.5 I
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/Classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
• •• • •• • ·--· ------· •• ····-··-·••·-~-'--~-~~-~~~··• •<> •-••·····•·-·~-~-'-·'-····• -·· ••• • •• ,. • -• ~-•• , ••• -.~---'·-~~~~c""•-"r-•• •.•.·.o-.c..--.•.<;.:~·.··.....--"'"·"-··~c.,•.v.-.·~·.":'-'•>"<'
' Sediment Description Page 3 oflO
II
4750 II 4
'I
4
/ ') 5000 II II 'I
II 3,5 I' II II 5.0
...-
Sediment Classification based on Grain Size:
Unified Soil Classification System (USCS)
!sediment Name I!Diameter {mm} Sieve No. I
\Cobble II greater than 75 mm
\Gravel II 4.75to75mm 4 I
jsand II 0.075 to 4.75 mm 200 I
IFines {silt and clay) II less than 0.075 mm
USCS Division of Sands
Sediment Diameter Range Passes through Sieve Retained on Sieve
Name (mm) No. No.
Coarse Sand I 2.0-4.8 II 4 II 10 I
jMedium Sand II 0.43-2.0 II 10 II 40 I
jFine Sand II O.D75-0.43 II 40 II 200 I
.J
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
~·~-o.~,..~---~-----···-·-····-•->--...-.---~·~-,.____.._._. .. ._.._._,_,. __ .,_.__,_,__,_ ..... ·.•---~--·~--'--<•''-'·''"----·-----4~-'>--'~'"""'·"''•'··~,,._._._.-.-.•• ·.· . ....-... ·~-..-<'-···:_-.-.• -""'-~~,_._._.._"-,_._.,.,_-~_,_._.._ . .,__,.~._.,_,_.,._,_,_~,:.-~,_,-,_,_,_·,·.r-e .. ·.:.a::.::.~..,-._,.-~~.:.·.·-'-'-'-'-"''--'·'---'"-•~'·''~:.~~··"-'I·"-""-"V
Sediment Description Page 4 of I 0
---.....
( ) 2·1nches .... /
1 1nch
~Inch (; ~
~Inch
Number4
' ,.
j;
Number 10 r:
Number200
Figure 4-3. Dry sieve analysis.
USCS Classification System
)
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
Sediment Description Page 5 oflO
UNitJEO SOll CLAS51F'ICA1ION SYSIEM
·· ...... MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIP110NS SYMBOLS
"'t: \'le II (ir'<l<la<l <lr'ove lr., ~0 G 1 eon Grove I s GW Grover • Soncr Ml ~rures, §~<I> LlTila or no Fines
l1: C> (llitla Ql' Poorl( Grocraa Grovels, Ill "' "j... ~ .. ®' no FlnesJ GP ·-.... -o,-Grove -Smd M I xturf.ls1 Vl w ~"SjVl Little or no Fines > C) <! "'" 0 "'-6c • 511 ty Grove 1 e, VlN !I> Gravfl Is With GM ::!c .cOO Grovel-Sana-Slit Mixturas ,_~z Fine& oo !P8 Vlo !Appraolool e GC C l (!yay Grove II>, [;i~ ~"" I') MS) Gnw&l·Sand·C lay Ml><tur6G z~ ~a
L f
cz:;; I> Well Gra<:lo'>O sonas, .. S\V Gt'<lV<'!I ly Sands, '-'"' \.0 C I aon SOn<IS " Li711a or no Fines uJ 0., :s: lQ::= <.>$ (LitTII'I ¢r SP J>o~;~r I y GrCKJar:t $QTJd$1 8:'.? Vl .,_.,<31 no Fines! Gravfl I I y Sonels, -a·-0 on."' Llttla or no rlnRs 6 z :ra"' ... s;; Vl Slvl s 11-ty SoMs, ,_ {; •• > S<Jnc:l~ '1111h
(j) .Ct-~ Flr~s San() -S II T Ml ><lUres t-0 '-0 £! ~H. IAppr'p,G i obI f.l c 1 qyaT sonas, \..I.<. sc {} rlnasJ Sand -G oy ·Mtx1ures ::;;
"' ML lnorgol'lio Sifts ~ Very Fine
>-.,.o S<Jnd~, $11ry or Cloyf.ly >In~ ~ <( Sonas, Clayey Slits .... .. "' '-' E.~ ·-"' g .... _g tnorgol'llo croys o-r Lol< to
<1>0 0 '\)I-CL Mecriun> Plostioity, ....I~ vl .. "' lMt'l Cloy$ ~ ""' ~~ .... z., _, or~nlo Sllis & Orgonio ~
_,_.
o"' Ill OL sr ty cr o.ys of Low ..,., pI OGt l C i, y =~
) .. :.-~
....... )r,org<~rolc sr J·rs, "'-'-" 0 V1 0 MH Fine Sand or Silty Solis, w"' ~ I() +-EloGt lq S 1115 "'c cl ·-c: -o ~" LL.c ,_ .c ,.. 8 -'I-CH lnorgonlo Cloys oi'
<!) u~ Hil;)h Pla!!.t Iotty, Foi Cloys
I. ·-(!)
~ "' tit ,_.
._) ~-tJ.) o.-gonlo cro16 of lvfeoiUITl --'I. OH Vl "" 10 H lgh P os·t lofty,.
Orgqr;lo Sllis
HIQhly Orgonio Soils PI PElot and Oi har
Highly Orgonlc 5oll5
Visual logging of sediments entails estimating percentages of gravels, sands and fines (silt and clays).
Practice and the use of the Geotechnical Gage will increase your confidence and ability in visually
· ·) logging sediments.
Read: Yisual Exam Test
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
Sediment Description Page 6ofl0
Read: Field Identification Guidelines
· · ) Ultimately, sediment samples may undergo grain size analysis through sieves. Graphing the cumulative
weight percent retained/passing by sieve no. or grain size will result in the sediment grain-size
distribution curve. The grain-size distribution curve is used to quantitatively classify the sediment type
(your visual identification is a qualitative classification).
Read: Grain Size Distribution Measurement
U.S. Standard Sieve
openings Jn lnchos
100
~ ~
N...
!)() ......
::~lit
60
40
~JW
Gravel
Coarse fine
Grain Size Distribution Curve
u.s. Standard Sieve numbors
"'~ "~ ! fil!ill2§ Hydrometor
"
/
1/
0.5 0.0{ 0.01 o.o
Fino SlltorCJay
ov
'"
·o.• ~qn
The grain-size distribution curve is used with the uses classification chart to classify the sediment
type. Other measures used to describe the sediment are the sorting or gradation of the sediment. As can
be seen in the above chart, a well-sorted sediment has a small range of sediment grain sizes while a
poorly sorted sediment has a large range of sediment grain sizes. In the USeS classification scheme, the
gradation of the sediment is used instead of the sorting. A well-graded sediment has a large range of
grain sizes while a poody or uniformly graded sediment has a small range of grain sizes.
Figure 4-6. Well-graded soil.
POORLY SORTED SEDIMENT= WELL GRADED SEDIMENT
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
. ') ··.· .. -·
····~
·· ....... J
'.)
Sediment Description Page7 of!O
Figure 4-7. Uniformly graded soll.
WELL-SORTED SEDIMENT= POORLY OR u'NIFORML Y GRADED SEDIMENT
~··
Figure 4-8. Gnp-graded soil.
After sieve analysis, the data are tabulated showing the weight of sediment retained on each sieve. The
cumulative weight retained is calculated starting from the largest sieve size and adding subsequent
sediment weights from the smaller size sieves (see table below). The percent retained is calculated from
the weight retained and the total weight of the sample. [Don't get confused by the graph -it is individual
percent retained in Column 16 and cumulative percent passing in Column 17]. The cumulative percent
passing in Column 17 of the table below is calculated by sequentially subtracting percent retained from
1 00 %. In table below, cumulative percent passing 1/4 inch sieve "" 100 -16 = 84; cumulative percent
passing #4 sieve= 84-5.2 = 78.8; etc.
http://www.geology .sdsu.edn/classes/ geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
:· '
")
·· ...... ....
·. )
Sediment Description Page 8 oflO
SIEVE ANALYSIS DATA I,OAU UAAt(l)
22 ml9l
tl!Oit:Cl . I'" (Xi:::OTJO* -4. OATJ (0Wtnf0 BRAVo AIRFIELD 28 FEB 91
5. SMiPLE DfS®mo.~ f.. SAWU: k\IMWI
lA
LIGHr llRC1.<li SNIDY SOIL 7, PUWA$}ft0 """ "' HO
• 0 24$9"' ( Wf$1T 9. + 1l(w3.$>\.'Mlf WHGHJ IOo •1,~ SAAIH.£ MIISHJ
. 2359 100 "· ll. 11
'WUGHT tl .. IS(VIJ~lNf " " s~~"l W(IOSH1' Q1 r~Wtf/l1o llfi,t% ~~~WJ SllV( Jl~ ~wAlh'f."o
1% 202
1 231
% 2!0 210 0 0 0 100.0
" 230 624 394 394 16.0 84.0
#4 205 J32 127 S21 5.2 78,8
#8 22S 691 ... 987 19.0 59.8
#20 215 612 391 1384 16.2 4.3,6
i60 235 581 346 1730 14.1 29,5
#100 250 612 362 2092 14.7 14.8
~200 260 SIS 255 2347 l0,4 4,4
11, fO At WUl I 'l€T.U.'HDI!i.:.li.\lhu-.. r~l<l 1' f:UQ~(I•JIJ
2347
lQi. W£1G.lif Sll~~l.l H~OUliH .iiZN ~"»'J • 270-260 10 2459-i457 • 2
ll. WASH! 1¢~$Jt;,,t~."bl 2459-(235()1-100) 0
n rori~l~liT MSSI-\'11 noo m. 'fl uo
H. IClfAt W~l'!ll11 Ol IAA(liQ~ I'I•Jn 2457
24. REMA.RltS 15 EUO~U+'I••~
um Sf <AAOfh••l ~ IN ,.
N!\Ct~iT•G-* Oii:IGl'Ul!. WTIII
P(II((N1•$ __!L ~· 100• .08 P£ACE1H•f~
: » lf(tii,'IC14tl J1, (O'UUIU> 8V "'t'"•••l ;e c»/:Mo •v 11-vWt'-">'1
~~PVZ. cfk'U#rvz. ~L %
OD form 1206, DEC 86
Figure 44. Data sheet, example of dry sieve analysis.
The cumulative percent passing is plotted on the grain-size distribution graph. The percentage passing
the No.4 and 200 sieves is used to classify the sediments as gravels (G), sands (S) or fines (must use
plasiticity index to differentiate between silts and clays).
http://www.geology .sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
,,
'· ·.;
... )
Sediment Description
OlO'I'J~ .t-mu
¢! ~ " .. = ft ~ II = ": :: !! it ~
m
0
: (;l g)
l'1 ,; d " ~
;; I a • •
!-i i a d'
"' g ~ ~ l ~ ~
~ ~ d
~ ft ' ' "' § 8 ... :; ~ _®
_o
::: I;;; ~ i ~ r ..
~ a@ ~"~ ..
~ f-J. 3 .. :: g® §;; u "' w ::; f ~ ~
= 1-~ " .. t; i! 3 " ;; ' !l !--: a j-
"' @ ~ F -~ t-
~ G>2 ~ .. !; § :2 f-~~ § -"' t: • ~-,.:
D .11
l'l •
;;; --
~
g i :c J'w~ !!! ~ " ;:;
110 ~ -~
! .. (iJ -!: ~ " I =o ~
-~ ;; 0 0 ~ : "' ,. a a ~ 0 " 5 ~ ~ • ~ ~"' Otl$.$14 n»Jl.l
Figure 4-S. Grain-size dL•tributlon cut'Ve from sieve ana lysis.
1 !
::1 ! d~ • • oS a~ ~
l:! ...
~ ~~
~
~ '1.
~
I
I ~
i~ I a Q. ~
Page 9of10
The grain-size distribution graph is used to read off the grain size at which 10% of the sample passed
(D10), 30% ofthe sample passed (Dlo) and 60% of the sample passed (D6o). These numbers are used to
calculate several coefficients:
Hazen's effective size, Dw, which will be used to estimate permeability
Uniformity Coefficient, Cu = Dw/DJo
In the above graph,
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
(
····,"
)
·:,/
) __ ...,
Sediment Description
,_._. -·-·· __ .,,.,._, •"" _,._._,_ _,_ ··-·-·--·· ·---·--·-· ... ·.-.. -.-~ ·.·• ,,., ~~--------~---' ~-"2.·'·-· , ___ -. ·--~---'.-';.-o.\--;·~' .::._ ''-~'-"--·'-'-'-' ,·_-:;<;< ,-.:~--..
D6o ~ 2.4 rom and D10 ~ 0.13 mm
then Cu = 2.4fO.l3 ,. 18.5
The uniformity coefficient is used to judge gradation.
Coefficient of Curvature, Co
Cc _ (Dso):__
-(D6ox D10)
In the above graph,
Dao"' 0.3mm
(0.3)2
:md Cc = (Z.4)(0.l3) w .29
Page 10 oflO '
In the graph below, well-graded soils (GW and SW) are long curves spanning a wide range of sizes with
a constant or gently varying slope. Uniformly graded soils (SP) are steeply sloping curves spanning a
narrow range of sizes. For a gap-graded soil (GP), the curve flattens out in the area of the grain-size
deficiency or gap.
The USCS criteria for well-graded gravels (OW) and sands (SW) are:
I. Less than 5% finer than No. 200 sieve
2. Uniformity coefficient greater than 4
3. Coefficient of curvature between 1 and 3
If Criterion 1 is met, but not Criteria 2 and 3, the gravels are gap-graded or uniform gravels (GP) or
sands (SP)
If you are interested in more information: Gradation and Bearing Capacity
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/classes/geol552/seddescription.htm 5/12/2007
--~--~---~------· ,_ -. -'-~---~------·-·· ~
........, •--~~-·----~---··~-., _, ~~~ '"',_,._ _____ ,_._,_~-~~---~-..----·.•.·.·-·.·.·.:;~,-,.,.,,,..,_._._,,~--·---~,-.,__,~..,__-..-,,~-.~,,_,.,__.,.;::.:.o,-.=-:.~,""'-'-"-'"·'·"-"'":..o.•.:·.-oo-: . ...,, .• :.:•.:;.·,,-o.·: ~J .
-~EPA
J"
J
J .
. J
.J
United States
Environmental Protection
•• Agency
OfflcG of Research and
Development .
Washington DC 20460
The Hydrologic
Evaluation of
. . EP AI600/R-94/168b .
· September 1994
Landfill Performance.
(HELP)·Model
·Engineering
Documentation for
Version 3
' ) 0.60
0.50 .
..... ~ 0.40
~ 0. :ZI
l 0·"'' M
0.30
0 u a: I!! 0.20
~
0.10
0.00
SAND SANDY !.OAM SILTY CLAY SILTY CLAY
LOAM LOAM LQAM CLAY
·Figure 2. Relation Among Moisture Retention Parameters and Soil Texture Class
) _.. are not specified, the program assumes values l)ear the steady-state values (allowing no
. ·:-.,
. )
··~ ...... ·
long-term change in moisture storage} and runs a year of simulation to ini~alize the
moisture contents closer to steady state. The soil water contents at the end of this year
. are substituted as the initial values for the simulation period. The program then runs the
complete simulation, starting again from the beginning of the first year of data. The
results of the volumetric water content initialization period are not reported in the output.
3.3.2 Unsaturated Hydraulic Conductivity
Darcy's constant of proportionality governing flow through porous media is known
quantitatively as hydraulic conductivity or coefficient of permeability and qualitatively
as permeability. Hydraulic conductivity is a function of media properties, such as
particle size, void ratio, composition, fabric, degree of saturation, and the kinematic
viscosity of the fluid moving through the media. Tpe HELP program uses the saturated
and unsaturated hydraulic conductivities of soil and waste layers to compute vertical
drainage, lateral drainage and soil liner percolation. The vapor diffusivity for
geomembranes is specified as a saturated hydraulic conductivity-. to compute leakage
through geomembranes by ;vapor diffusion .
13
L ,.
~ '
i: I
Jl
]
')
j' TABLE 1. DEFAULT LOW DENSITY SOIL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil Texture Class A
FVeld Saturated · Total Wilting Hydraulic Porosity Capacity Point -HELP USDA uses voVvol vol/vol voUvol Conductivity
em/sec
1 CoS SP 0.417 0.045 0.018 l.Oxl<Y2
1. 2 s SW 0.437 0.062 0.024 5.8xl<J3
3 .FS sw 0-.457 0.083 0.033 3.1x10·~
4 LS s:M' 0.437 0.105 0.047 1.7x10'3
5 LFS SM 0.457 0.131 . 0.058 1.0x10'3
6 SL SM 0.453 0.190 0.085 7.2xl04
7 FSL SM 0.473 0.222 0.104 5.2xl04
8 L ML 0.463 0.232 0.116 3.7x10-4
9 SiL ML 0.501 0.284 0.135 1.9x104
10 SCL sc 9.398 0.244 0.1~6 1.2x104
11' CL CL 0.464 0.310 0.187 6.4x10'5 ·
12 SiCL CL 0.471 0.342 0.210 4.2x10'5
13 sc sc 0.430 0.321 0.221 3.3xl0·5
14 SiC CH 0.479 0.371 0.251 2.5x10..s
15 c CH 0.475 0.378 0.251 2.5x10·5
21 G GP 0.397 0.032 0.013 3.0xl0'1
a = constant representing the effects of various
fluid constants and gravity, 21 cm3/sec
"' -total porosity, voUvol
0, -residual volumetric water content, vol/vol
"'· = bubbling pressure, em
' f.. = pore·size distribution index, dimensionless
(). '332-
o. '3 '{..(.;
D.t.~~
o.:?.S·t
o.~s'
0 :z.rt
(). l ~4
A more detailed explanation of Equation 11 can be found in Appendix A of the HELP
program Version 3 User's Guide and the cited references.
19
~;
v·
..... ----------······· .... -----· ~-~-----··---·~·--.
36 PERMI!ABIUTV
ered that when well-graded mixtures of sand and gravel contained as little as
5'7G of fines (sizes smaller than a No. 200 sieve) high compactlve efforts re.
duced the effective porosities nearly to zero and the permeabillties to less than
0.01% of those at moderate densities. These tests explain one of the reasons
that blends of sand and gravel often used for drains are virtually useless as
drainage aggregates if they contaln more than insignificant amounts of fines.
In the preceding paragraphs variations In the permeability of remolded ma· .
terlals caused by variable compaction were discussed. Any factor that densifie.s ·
soils reduces permeablllty. Studies of the rate of consolidation of clay and peat
foundations are sometimes made by using initial coefficients of permeabilitY of compressible formations. While the consoUdatlon process is going on Jn
foundations their permeabiUties are becoming less. Generally, decreases in the
penneabilitles of clay foundations are rather moderate, but they can be large in ·
highly compressible organle silts and clays and in peats. Modified calculation
methods utilizing the changlng permeability are needed in tbe anal¥sls of .
highly compressible foundations. Some typical variations in permeability
eau~ed by consolidation are given in Fig. 2.10, a plot of consolldation pressure
versus permeability.
l4 ;}!: 31 If l:!o pc9.
~ 4trop5P
~ z ..-rsr
100
10
1
0.1
~ 0.01 ~ 0.001 li ~lx to-•
lit x to·• ..
1 X 10"6
1 x to-7
1 )C to-8
1 x to·•
Ct~n~gfavel 100,000
I I 10,000 Coarselsand I . ~o~e~.>·~~: 1000
.. 1 I 100
10 1:1 ~
1 ~ D n
0.1 • ~ 0,01
1 x to""
I ]. . I X 10"5
I I\ i I
0.1 1.0 ~ 1-"'(~.f
Consolidation pressure, T}sq ft.
FIG, 2,10 l'ermeablUty versus consolidation pressure.
~:
;
(2.!)
2..2 COE!'FICIENT OF PERMEABILITY 25
k = Jl (f.2) /At
Darcy's disCharge velocity multiplied by the entlre' cross-sectional area, in·
eluding voids e and solids I, gives the seepage quantity Q under a given hy-
draulic gradient i "' Ahlt.l or h!L. It Is an imaginary velocity that does not
exist anywhere. The average seep ace velocity v, of a mass of water progressing
through the pore spaces of a sol! is equal to the discharge velocity (v, = kl)
muJtiplled.by (I + e)le or the discharge velocity divided by the effectlve poros-
·IIY n,; hence permeability is related to seepage velocity by the expression
k v.n. =-i (2.3)
For ;my seepage condition Jn the laboratory or In t~e field In which the
seepage quantity, the area perpendlcular to the direction of flow, and tho hy-
draulic gradient are known the coefficient of permeability can be calculated.
Likewise, for any situation where the seepage VJioclty Is known at a point at
whlch the hydraulic gradient and soil porosity also are known, permeability can
be calculated.
Bxperlmentally determined coefficients of penneabillty can be combined
with prescribed hydraulic gradients and discharge areas In solving practical
problems Involving seepage quantities and velocities. When a coefficient of
permeablllty has been properly determined, It furnishes a very important fac·
tor in the analysis of seepage and in the design of drainage features for engi-
neering works.
The coefficient of permeability as used In this book and In soil mechanics
In general should be distinguished from the physicists' coefficient of perme-
ability K, which is a more general term than the en!llncers' c6efficient qnd has
units of centimeters squared rather· than a velocity; it varies with the porosity
of the soli but is fndependent of the viscosity and density of the fluid. The
transmissibility factor T represents the capability of an aq)llfer to discharge
water and ls the product of permeability k and aquifer thickness I,·
The engineers' coefficient, which is used In praetical problems of seepage
through masses of earth and other porous media, applies only to the flow of
water and is a simplificatlon introduced purely from the standpoint of conv~
nience. 1t has units of a velocity and is expressed in centimeters per second,
feet per minute, feet per day, or feet per year; depending on the habits and
personal preferences of Individuals using the coefficient. In standard soil me·
chanics terminology k is expressed In centimeters per second:
Although coefficient of permeability is often considered to be a constant
for a given soU or rock, it can vary widely for a given material, depending on
a number of factors. Its absolute values depend, first of all, on the properties
of water, of which viscosity. is the most important. For Individual materials
At/1tchment-0 )~
Ce.dergre,n, 11 UpiJ8c.> Drtti11~e ,tllio Ptowt.Jetr ~grrAed.
I
I l I
;
I
I
I
i
j
' I I ,,
' l • I I
..•... ,)
i.
·---~-/
-. --··
ODE Multi-Flow Pnge loft
, __ . ---. . . . . . -· . . .. "~---~ ..... ,~·-
: . Home . . Multi-Flow . !-J<:~zvent Request·cataJog . cant~·
~ . . . . . .·--. . . . . . .. =•-r-.~~-,
Multi-Flow
prodyct Information
8Jm!loat!ons
Ei!liJWll Aru;essorles
Technical
Installation
Drainage Guide
~
Technical Properties
Orolnage Core
property
ihlckness, inches
Flow Rate, gpmift'
Compross!Ve StrengtH
Geotexllla Filler
Yost Method
ASTM0·1777
ASTM0-4716
!>tQperty Test Method
Weight, oz/sq yda ASTM 0·3776
Tensile Slrength,lb. ASTM 0·4632
Elongation, % ASTM Q-4632
f!uncluro,lb, ASTM D-4833
Mullen Burs!; psi ASTM 0·3786
Trapezoidal Tear, lb. ASTM 0·4833
Coelfeclent of Perm,cm/sec ASTM 0·4491
Flow Rale, gpm/ft?. ASTM !>-4491
PermiiiMiy, 1/seo ASTM 0-4401
1\.0.S Max US Sid Sieve ASTM 0 4761
UV Siabll!ly, 500 hrs., % ASTM 0.43'55
Seam Slreogth,lb./ft ASTM D-4595
Fungus ASTM G-21
Va!ua
1.0. * 29
BDOO
Value
4.0
190
50
50
200
42
0.1
100
1.8
70
70
100
No Growth
• Horil:onlallnslallallon, gradient= 0.01, compressive forCll ~ 10 psi for 1!
An values given represent minimum average roll values
GO£! Control Products, Inc. laguna Hills, CA. 949-305-7117
GDE, Huln-ftow .
< \n\p: www.3dc,cm111t>l. tnWJ/Hulli-Piow6.html> Afut~~c.nr f: 1/1
•• ,. ............ t
I i I I I I I ' I
I I
l I ! • I I ' I
i !
I.
I I !
i
i ;'. ;·
,.-:
;,
·:~
-· ..
150 Destgntng with Geotextltos Chap,2
TABUI2.12 RECOMMENDoO RI:OUCTION FACTOR VALUES FOR USE IN EO. (2.2581
Rangeo!Red•ctlon!lwlors
Ctup
Soll Clogging Reduction InltUs!on Olemlcal lllologltat
Appll<aUon nod lllindlng' ofVolds intoVokls Cloggtogt Clogging
Retalnlbg wall ftlttm 2.0to4.0 15102.0 1.0to1.2 l.Oto 1.2 1.0101J
Underdrah> lillt!S S.Oto10 1.0to 1.5 1.0to 1.2 1.2 to 1.5 2.0to4D * Erosion-controUI.1te18 2.0to10 LOtol.S t.Oto1.2 l.Oto1.2 2.0to4.0
LalldJilllilteJS S.OtolQ 1.5to2.g t.Otot.Z 1.2to15 510101
Gravity drainage Mto4.0 '2.0to3.0 t.Oto 1.2 L'no'r.:t 1.2to 1.5
l'Iessure drainage 2.0to3.0 2.0103.0 t.Oto1.2 t.lto 1.3 1.1101.3
*If stone rip rap or concreto blocks cover the su.rfsG'e of the geotextllc, uso eltherthe upper values or include:
an addiUonal reduction factor.
'Values can be blgherpartlc:olarly ft>r blgh alkalllllty groundwatet'.
'Values can bo blgher for tUibldity and/or forralcroorganllnn contonts greater than SOOO mg/1.
where
q.u.w = allowable flow rate,
q.h = ultimate flow rate,
RFscP =reduction factor for soU clogging and blinding,
RFc• = reduction factor for creep reduction of void space,
(2.2Sb)
RFm = reduction factor for adjacent materials intruding into geotextile's void
space,
RFcc =reduction factor for chemical clogging,
RF8c = reduction factor for biologicill clogging, and
IlRF = value of cumulative reduction factors.
AB with Eqs. (2.24) for strength reduction, !hls Jiow-reductlon equation ci>uld also have
included additional site-,specific terms, such as blocking of a portion of the geotextile's
surface by riprap or concrete blocks.
2.5 DESIGNING FOR SEPARATION
Appllcatlon areas for geotextlles used for the separation function were given in Sec-
tion 1.3.3. There are m~y specific appllcatioru,.and it could be said, in a general senso. .
that geotextlles always serve a separation function. If they t:jo not also serve thl.s fun;· .
tion, any other function, includiilg the primary one, will not be served properly. 'This
should not give the lmpresslon that the geotextlle !unction of separation always plays a
secondary role. Many situations call !or separation only, and in such cases the geoteX· ,, :.-
tiles serve a slgnlftcant and worthwhile function.
Sec.2
2.5.1
Perha
lsthe: I coura I thatt
sUe S1 ' ' I sons· I sepat I 81\d f
matic ;·
of SCI ' giver I 2.5.2 i
Coru I
plaC(
avaU
thet
derl!
the 1
fom
i i I ' I I
l
I
I
._,
-----------------------
· ..... ·
. '
I•
402 Deslgnlng with Geonets Chap. 4
4.1.6 Allowable Flow Rata
As described previously, the very essence of tho 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 fonn.
where
FS=~ q,... (4.3)
FS = factor of safety (to handle unknown loading conditions or uncertainties
in the design method, etc.),
q~k>w = allowable I! ow rate as obtained from laboratory testing, and q,"'4 = required I! ow rate as obtained from design of the actual system.
Alternatively, we could work from transmissivity to obtain the equivalent relationship.
FS=~ o,...., (4.4)
where 9 is the transmissivity. under definitions as above. As discussed previously, how.
ever, it is preferable to design with l!ow rate rather than with transmissivity beoause of
nonlaminar flow conditions in geonets.
Concerning the allowable flow rate or transmissivity value, which comes from
hydraulic testing of the type described in Section 4.1.~,.we mlll!t assess the realism of
the test setup in contrast to the actuaJ.fteldsystem. If the test setup does not modelsite-
specl!lc conditions adequately, then adjustments to !he laboratory value must be mad~
This is usually the case. Thus the laboratory-generated value is an ultimate value that
m\ISt be reduced before use in design; that is, ,
q.uow<q,.,
One way of doing this is to ascribe reduction factors on each of the items not ade-
quately assessed in the laboratory test. For example,
[ 1 J qatlow"" qwt RFm X RFcR X RFcc X RFBc
or if all of the reduction factors are considered together.
qatlow = q,u[uk] .,:·:
where
-
sao.·4
l
1
l
J
Some
giveni
inform
andUc
speclfl;
thepa:
ample1
tionfa
Jlxampi
v
a
d
rl
s
E
TAB
FOF
Sp c.
R<
R<
Dt
Su
I s ..
'· 1
; .
;
i i I I : I I I I !
I I ' i ' I ' ' '
I·
I ~ ,.
f
i:: :.
.i ·>?eonets Chap,4
... ~-
1ction concept is the es·
, now rate is the primary
(4.3)
dltlons or uncertainties
testing, and
e actual system.
e equivalent relatlonshlp.
(4A)
tiscussedpreviously,how·
transmissivity bW!USO of
value which comes flom
nust ~ss tho reali~ of
.... >/Pdoesnotmodelstl&-
.• .zy value must be made.
· e 'is an ultimate value that
.ach of the iteDlS not ado-
wJ (4.5)
,il-:
Seo. 4.1 Geonot Properties and Test Methods
qano, = allowable flow rate to be used in Eq. (4.3) for final design plllposes,
RF JN =reduction factor for elastic defonnation, or intrusion, of tho adjacent
geosyntheties into the geonet's core space,
403
RFcR =reduction factor for creep deformation of the geonet and/or adjacent
geosynthetlci into the geonet's core space,
RFcc = reduction factor for chemical clogging and/or precipitation of chemicals
in the geonet's core space,
RF.ea = reduction factor for biological clogging in the geonet's core space, and
nRF = product of all reduction factors for the site-specific conditions.
Some guidelines for tho various reduction factors to be used in different situations are
given in Thble 4.2. Please note that some of these values are based on relatively sparse
information. Other reduction factors, such as installation damage, temperature effects,
and liquid turbidity, could also be included. If needed, they can be included on a site-
specific basis. On the other hand, if the actuallaborato.ty test procedure has included
the particular item, it would appear In the above formulation as a value of unity. Ex-
amples 4.2 and43 illustrate the use of geonets and serve to point out that high reduc-
tion factors are warranted in critical situations.
:&ample4.2 I What Is the aUowablo geonet !low rate to be used in the design of a caplllaxy break beneath
a roadway to prevent frost heave? Assume that laboratory testing was dono at the proper
design load and hydraulic graclient and that !his testing yielded a short-tenn between-
rigid-plates value of2.5 x lO"'m'ta •
Solution: Slnee.beUerinfonnation Is not known, average values from 'nible 4.2 are used in
Eq.(4.5).
TABLE 4.2 RECOMMENDED PREUMINAIW REDUCTION FACTOR VALUES FOR E0.(4.5)
. FOR DETE~MINING ALLOWABLE FLOW RATE OR TRANSMISSIVITY OF GEONETS
~H<llffonArea RFm RFCR* RFcc RFsc
Sport fieldt l,Oto1.2 1.0tol.S t.Oto1.2 l.t to13
Caplllaxy breaks l.lto 1.3 l.Oto1.2 1.1to 1.5 1.1to13
Roof and plaza deck< 1.2 fo 1.4 t.Otot.2 1.0to1.2 l.l1o1.3
R.et1llnlngwalh,seeplngroek,
nildsollslopes · ·
'1.3tol.S 1.2to 1.4 1.1to1.S 1.0 to 1.5
D.rolnage blankets t:! to 1.5 1.2101.4 t.Otol.2 1.0to 1.2
Sudaoo wator dtalru. for 1.3 to 1.5 l.1 to 1.4 l.O!o 1.2 1.2 to 1.5
Jandiill COV6l'$
Sewndaty leachate. colleclion 1.5to2.0 1.4to2.0 · 1.5 to2.0 l.S lo2.0
. Qandfllls)
l'llmary leachate eoUe<tlon 1.Sto2.0 1.4to2.0 1:Sto2.0 1.Sto2.0
(Jeadfllls)
"1bo<o valueslll6aensitlvclo the density of thor..U. used In tho geonet's rnanu,ffieture. '!be higher
the density. the lower tho. reduction factor. Creep of the: covering geotextile(s) is a product.spcclfio
ls!uo. : .
I
i ' ' I I I
' ! ; ;.
' ;,
' "=· I I I I I
;:,
670 Designing with Geoplpes
The above formula can be readily converted to flow rate, Q, by muJtip,JylJ~g lhevelociW
by the cross-sectional area A of the pipe.
For pipelines that are either flowing full or flowing partially full, the Mm•mln,
equation is generally used.
where
V =velocity of flow (mls),
Rn =hydraulic radius (m),
S = slope or gradient of pipeline (m!m), and
11 =coefficient of roughness (see 'Ibble 7.7) (dimensionless).
Example7.1
A 100m long pipe w!tllD = 200 nun and C = 120candesa dlscb•~rgeof<lQ
the head loss in 1ho pipe. (Sco1ho Hazen· Williams chart in Figure
Solntioru Applying the conditions given to 1ho solution chart in I'Igure ?\6,i
dlent is obtained.
s~ O.OOS~mlm
TABLE 7.7 VALUES OF MANNING ROUGHNESS COI;FflCIEI~t 1~ f()RJ~RESl
SURFAC!lS
'JI'po of Pipe Surface
Unfinished concrete, well-laid brickwork, concreto or cast iron pipe
Riveted or "'ira! steel pipe
Smooth, unito:rm earth channel
Conugated fhunes, typical canals, river free fiom large ~ones and h.,,w '"""l"
Canals and rivets wifu many stones and weeds
"'Tho table does: not distinguish between different types ofplastl~; or be~•-• ~
pipe-s with perforatioM.
Source: After F()x and McDonald [9}.
;!•
~:
[. r
•. )
' .. ,.•
(
d,
CHART 1
SOIL RETENTION CRITERIA
FOR STEADY-STATE FLOW CONDITIONS
r-------
!· I I
l
•s \he parllcle SIZt of which x percsn\ IS smaller
/ " ___ ../
d'1oo and d'o are the ei\Uem•lles of a stra~ghl lin•
/
/ / /
I I
/
C'u• /'d';;;; Vdb' dtawn through the oaniele·s•ze dislr•bul•on, as Cliteeted aboves 11nd
d' ~0 i$ lha mTdootnl of I his fine.
Cc•~ dooxd,o
10 15 tho re1ahve denisty of lhe soli
PI '' the olasi!CI1y tnd&" ollhe JOll OHR JS lhe aoubll•hydlomuler ratio ot the $Oil
Porllons of lh1s flow cnart mod1hed from Giraud 119881
13
Source: LueHicb, S.M., Giroud, 1.P., and Bachus, R.C. (1991).
"Geotextile Filter Design Manual". Report prepared
for Nlcolon Cotporation, Norcross, Georgia.
//
" /
I
i' ;
. ___ :.··
:.
"• .. .-·
4.2 Denne the Hydraulic Gradient for the Appl!catjon (ij
The hydraulic gradient will vruy depending on the application of the filter.
Anticipated hydraulic gradients for various applications may be estimated using
Flgure 3.
4.3 Determine the Minimum Allowable ('.eotextile Permeability ("')
After determining the soil hydraulic conductivity and the hydraulic gradient, the
following equation can be used to determine the minimum allowable geotextl!e
permeability [Giraud, 1988]:
The hydraulic conductivity (permeability) of the geotextile can be calculated
from the permittivity test method AS1M D 4491; this value can often be obtained
from the manufacturer's literature as well. The geotextile permeability is defined
as the product of the permittivity, ttr, and the geotexti!e thickness, tg:
kg > (jl tg
STEP 5. DETERMINE ANTI-CLOGGING REQUIREMENTS
To minimize the risk of clogging, the following criteria should be met:
" • Use the largest opening size (09,) that satisfies the retention criteria.
• For nonwoven geotexllles, use the largest porosity available, but not less
than 30 percent.
• For woven geotextiles, use the largest percent open area available, but not
less than 4 percent.
Source: Luettich, S.M., Gltoud, 1.P.,andBachus,R.C. (1991).
"Geotextile Filter Design Manual". Report prepared
for Nlcolon Cotporatlon, Norcross, Georgia.
7
Table 4·5
Typical Hydraulic Gradlentst~
DRAINAGE APPLICATION TYPICAL HYDRAULIC
GRADIENT
Standard Dewatering Trench 1.0
Vertical Wall Drain 1.5
Pavement Edge Drain 11'l
Landfill LCDRS 1.5
Landfill LCRS 1.5
Landflll SWCRS 1.5
Inland Channel Protection 1~'~ ' l
Shoreline Protection 10M
Dams 1Qt'l
Uquld Impoundments 1oM
NOTES: <~ Table developed after Giraud [1988].
t>> Critical applications may require designing with higher gradients than
those given. ·
l .. ·1
44 i ..
J.
UllitWelght ASJM D-3))6 Oz.~~ .. 8.0 10.0 12.0 16.0
Grab Teoslla ASTMIJ.4Bn lb3. 200 235 275 360
Grnb Elonsolion ASTMo.4ro2 % 50 50 50 liO 50
Mun.tl Bum ASJM 0-3787 ~~ 225 3511 450 550 650 750
Pun<l!lm ASJM IJ.m:l lbs. 55 llO ISO 165 185 no ~
TrnpezoidTear ASJM IJ.45:l3 35 65 8!1 95 115 13()
ilpp!llll1 Opening Sila ASTMIJ.4751
PermittMty ASTM IJ.4491
Permeabflity ASTMIJ.M91
Thlcl<n"' ASTMD·1177
;: ,.
'
Grab Tensile ASTM0·4632 lbs. 100/115 225!200 275/270 3151310 410/370 6101470
Grob !loogation ASJM0·4B32 \1 75 65 65 65 65 65
Mullen Burst AS7MD·378B psi 285 410 575 650 11'25 920
Pu!l<\018 ASJM IJ.4933 lbs. 75 120 170 190 210 270
TraJl'2fld Tear ASJMD·4593 60/60 100130 140/120 1601140 IB51165
Apl"rent Opening Sizo ASTM0·4751
PermittMtv ASJMD·4491
Permeability ASTMD-4491
RoiiYfldtb ft. 15 15 15 15 15 15
Roll length ft. 1200 900 600 600 460 :roo I
Gross We~bt lbs. 500 560 5110 686 5IU 500
j:
1000 1600 750 500
1\t\mow mwic.s t F\~
~~llb!Cfl.
'1Mvx>CQ ~te ~
6rot-cx;tite.s 11 v
--\
. : ·)
-. -·'
CELL4B.OUT
D **********************~******************************************************* ******************************************************************************
** ** ** ** ''* ** ** ** **
HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE
HELP MODEL VERSION 3.07 (1 NOVEMBER 1997) DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
** ** ** ** **
** **
** ** **********************~******************************************************* ******************************************************************************
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE: TEMPERATURE DATA FILE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA:
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE:
OUTPUT DATA FILE:
C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D4 C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D7
C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D13 C:\HLP3\IUC\IUC30.D11
C:\HLP3\IUC\Cell4B.D10
C:\HLP3\IUC\Cell4B.OUT
TIME: -12 : 18 DATE: 8/30/2007
--·) if*****************************************************************************
TITLE: IUC slimes Drain Analysis cell 4B
..... ··
******************************************************************************
NOTE: INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SN0\'1 WATER WERE
-COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.
LAYER 1
TYPE 1 -VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 0
THICKNESS ; 36.00 INCHES
POROSITY = 0.4700 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY = 0.2220 VOL/VOL WILTING POINT 0.1000 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT ; 0.1980 VOL/VOL EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.520000001000E-03 CM/SEC
LAYER 2
TYPE 2 -LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
Page,1
J:
L
r ,_
)
CELL4B.OUT
~~TERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 0
THICKNESS POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY WILTING POINT
= 6.00 INCHES
= 0.4700 VOL/VOL
= 0.2220 VOL/VOL
= 0.1040 VOL/VOL
= 0.2220 VOL/VOL INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
SLOPE
= 0.520000001000E-03 CM/SEC = 1.00 PERCENT DRAINAGE LENGTH = 75.0 FEET
GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 7 WITH BARE GROUND CONDITIONS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 1.% AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 75. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER = 88.80 FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = o.o PERCENT
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 1.000 ACRES EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 16.0 INCHES
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIVE ZONE = 2.689 INCHES
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 7.520 INCHES
LO\~ER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE STORAGE = 1.600 INCHES INITIAL SNOW WATER = 0.000 INCHES INITIAL \~ATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 8.458 INCHES TOTAL INITIAL WATER = 8.458 INCHES TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW = 0.00 INCHES/YEAR
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA ------------------------------------
NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA WAS OBTAINED FROM GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
STATION LATITUDE = 39.07 DEGREES
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 1.00 START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 109 END OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 293 EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH = 16.0 INCHES AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED = 8.10 MPH
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 60.00 % AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 36.00 %
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 36.00 % AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 57.00%
NOTE: PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
JAN/JUL FEB/AU_G MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
Page 2 i
') ... •.
...
') ··, ·'
0.64 0.47
0.54
0.91
CELL4B.OUT
0.75 0.71
0.70 0.87
0.76
0.63
NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
0.44
0.58
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ----------------------------
25.50
78.90
33.50 75.90 41.90 67.10 51.70 54.90 62.10 39.60 72.30 28.30
NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR GRAND JUNCTION COLORADO
AND STATION LATITUDE = 39.07 DEGREES
*******************************************************************************
AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC ------------------------------------------PRECIPITATION -------------TOTALS 0.44 0.44 0.65 0.81 0.75 0.52 0.39 1.08 0.58 1.00 0.94 0.54
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.23 0.30 0.31 0.44' 0.53 0.63
0.30 0.48 0.44 0.63 0.52 0.31
RUNOFF ------TOTALS 0.000 o.ooo o.ooo. 0.000 0.000 o.ooo
0.000 o.ooo o.ooo o.ooo 0.000 0.000
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.000 o.ooo o.ooo o.ooo 0.000 o.ooo 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 o.ooo 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION ------------------TOTALS 0.441 0.542 0.627 0.714 0.941 1.152
0.511 0.980 0.481 0.737 0.589 0.454
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.213 0.272 0.280 0.352 0.544 o. 560
0.398 0.510 0.395 0.637 0.250 0.224
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 ------------------------------------TOTALS 0.0000 o.oooo 0.0009 0.0011 0.0002 0.0008
0.0003 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0010 0.0000
STD. DEVIATIONS 0.0000 0.0000 0.0020 0.0027 0.0008 0.0019
Page 3
,·
1:
i:
'· t·
f•
'
! ' i i ' i.
I !
-------------~~-------------------------------. ------------~--~-~----------------v---------• --·--.-. '---------.-----------------------• ---------• ••• .• ---'>---------·----------·-· • ---·.
\,J
0.0009 CELL4B.OUT 0.0000 o.oooo 0.0000 0.0032 0.0000
*******************************************************************************
*******************************************************************************
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS & (STD. DEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 10
--------------~-------~--------------------------------------------------------INCHES cu. FEET PERCENT -----------------------------------------PRECIPITATION 8.16 ( 1.320) 29628.1 100.00
RUNOFF 0.000 ( 0.0000) 0.00 0.000
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 8.168 ( 1. 5732) 29651.33 100.079
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2 . 0.00442 ( 0.00727) 16.060 0.05420
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE -0.011 ( 0.7860) -39.33 -0.133
*******************************************************************************
0
******************************************************************************
PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 2
SNOW WATER
MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
1 THROUGH
(INCHES) ----------0.86
o.ooo
0.003089
o. 72
10
(CU. FT.)
-----------~~
o. 2271
0.1000
3121.800
0.0000
11.21440
2615.3926
******************************************************************************
0 **********************~*******************************************************
FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 10
LAYER (INCHES) (VOL/VOL) -----------------1 6.9017 0.1917
2 1. 3320 0.2220
Page 4
;,
:.
./
.)
SNOW WATER
CELL4B.OUT
0.116
****************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************
Page 5
r !
i
I ,.
'
I
I
I
1
1
1
'
1
1
1

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX I

SETTLEMENT MONITORING PLAN

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp MWH Americas, Inc.
I-1 September 2011
I.1 INTRODUCTION
This appendix outlines the settlement monitoring plan for tailings Cells 1, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B.
Monitoring of tailings impoundment surface settlement will be conducted after placement of the
interim cover to measure rates and locations of settlement prior to final cover construction. After
construction of the final cover system, settlement monitoring will be conducted as part of post-
reclamation performance monitoring.

I.2 PLAN OBJECTIVES
There are two objectives for monitoring settlement associated with the tailings cells: (1)
assurance that the materials in the tailings cells have stabilized prior to construction of the final
cover system, and (2) after final cover construction, verification that the final cover surface is not
experiencing significant settlement (i.e., greater than 0.1 feet (30 mm) of cumulative settlement
over a 12 month period). These objectives are assessed by measurement of the elevations of
monitoring points at selected locations across the cell surfaces.

The mill tailings have been discharged into the cells as slurry, resulting in saturated tailings
materials of low density. As a result of covering and dewatering, these tailings will consolidate
and settle. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff policy requires that the subgrade surface
achieve 90 percent of anticipated consolidation prior to placement of the final cover system, in
order to minimize differential settlement of the final cover system.

Settlement in the area of Cell 2 and the eastern portion of Cell 3 is expected to be minimal, as
an interim cover has already been constructed in these areas. Settlement of the thickest profile
of tailings in Cells 2, 3, 4A and 4B is anticipated to range from 0.1 to 0.9 ft after placement of
interim cover and dewatering (see Appendix F). Additional settlement due to construction of the
final cover is estimated to be approximately 0.4 feet in Cells 2, 3, 4A and 4B, as discussed in
Appendix F.

I.3 MONITORING PLAN
The settlement monitoring plan will consist of two phases: (1) monitoring the interim cover
surface prior to final cover system construction, and (2) monitoring the top-of-cover surface after
final cover system construction. Monitoring of both phases will be done at the approximate
location of monitoring points shown on Figure I.1. These points are located on an approximate
grid spacing of 225 feet by 425 feet (north-south by east-west). The elevations of the
monitoring points will be surveyed on a monthly basis. Survey accuracy would typically be to the
nearest 0.01 foot (3 mm).

The settlement monitoring points used prior to final cover construction will be wooden stakes,
rebar, or similar driven a minimum of 12 inches into the interim cover. These points will be
adequately located and marked with flagging to facilitate location for surveying and to avoid
contact with construction equipment. In the areas of Cells 2 and 3 where monitoring points
already exist, these points will likely be extended upward during placement of additional random
fill. The monitoring points for the remainder of Cell 3, as well as for Cells 4A and 4B will be
installed after interim cover placement. These monitoring points may require replacement in
areas of active interim fill placement and compaction. A monitoring period of four years prior to
final cover system construction is anticipated, based on the estimated time required to reach 90
percent consolidation (see Appendix F). The objective for the phase of monitoring following

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

Denison Mines Corp MWH Americas, Inc.
I-2 September 2011
interim cover placement is to demonstrate that approximately 90 percent of anticipated
consolidation of the materials beneath the subgrade surface has occurred prior to final cover
system construction.

The settlement monitoring points used after final cover construction would be of a more
permanent construction, consisting of rebar or other metal rod driven a minimum of 24 inches
below the cover surface. These points would be adequately located and marked with PVC pipe
or other markers to facilitate location for surveying and to avoid contact with maintenance
equipment. A monitoring period of two to five years after final cover system construction is
anticipated. The objective for the phase of monitoring following final cover construction is to
verify that no significant cover surface settlement takes place. Typically less than 0.1 feet (30
mm) of cumulative settlement over a 12 month period is acceptable.
CELL2
~ 2W4-C _ • 2W5-C
-----,-c~~,"~ \-e.2W6-C
I I CELL 3 e 3-4C .3-68
J .3-58 ',)
.3-48 ?
( (~
\,n --\e-3-2C
( ::
/ e \-2s
~""'iiiiiii!~.iS~CAL~E ~iiiiiiiiii~ fiiHII D 200 400 FT
200 CONTOUR INTERVAL -2 FEET
LEGEND:
560~
FINAL COVER SURFACE ELEVATIONEiTOP OF -5605 EROSION PROTECTION LAYER). FE
.4ATOE
.4A-2S
EXISTING SETTLEMENT MONITORING POINT
PROPOSED SffiLEMENT MONITORING POINT
S RECLAMATION WHITE MESA MILL TAILING
SETILEMENT MONITORING POINTS
\

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
APPENDIX J

REVEGETATION PLAN

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
J-1 September 2011
J.1 INTRODUCTION
Revegetation of the tailing cells at the White Mesa Mill Site will be completed following
construction of the cover system. The revegetation process will establish a grass-forb
community consisting primarily of native, long-lived perennial grasses and forbs that are highly
adapted to the climatic and edaphic conditions of the site. Revegetation methods will follow
state-of-the-art techniques for soil amendments, seedbed preparation, seeding and mulching.
In addition, quality assurance and quality control procedures will be followed to ensure that
revegetation methods are implemented correctly and the results of the process meet
expectations.

J.2 PLANT SPECIES AND SEEDING RATES
The following 12 species (10 grasses and 2 forbs) are proposed for the ET cover system.
These species are selected for their adaptability to site conditions, compatibility, and long-term
sustainability. The proposed species are:

Grasses
 Western wheatgrass, variety Arriba (Pascopyrum smithii)
 Bluebunch wheatgrass, variety Goldar (Pseudoroegneria spicata)
 Slender wheatgrass, variety San Luis (Elymus trachycaulus)
 Streambank wheatgrass, variety Sodar (Elymus lanceolatus ssp. psammophilus)
 Pubescent wheatgrass, variety Luna (Thinopyrum intermedium ssp. barbulatum)
 Indian ricegrass, variety Paloma (Achnatherum hymenoides)
 Sandberg bluegrass, variety Canbar (Poa secunda)
 Sheep fescue, variety Covar (Festuca ovina)
 Squirreltail, variety Toe Jam Creek (Elymus elymoides)
 Blue grama, variety Hachita (Bouteloua gracilis)

Forbs
 Common yarrow, no variety (Achillea millefolium)
 White sage, no variety (Artemisia ludoviciana).

The ecological characteristics of these species are described in detail in Appendix D.

Table J.1 presents broadcast seeding rates for each species. Seeding rates were developed
based on the objective of establishing a permanent cover of grasses and forbs in a mixture that
would promote compatibility among species and minimize competitive exclusion or loss of
species over time. Seeding rates were developed on the basis of number of seeds per unit area
(e.g. number of seeds per square foot) and then converted to weight per unit area (e.g. pounds
per acre).

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
J-2 September 2011
Table J.1. Species and seeding rates proposed for ET cover at the White Mesa Mill Site.
Scientific Name Common Name Native/
Introduced
Seeding Rate
(# PLS
seeds/ft2) †
Seeding
Rate (lbs
PLS/acre)†
Grasses
Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass Native 6.0 3.0
Pseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass Native 8.0 3.0
Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass Native 5.0 2.0
Elymus lanceolatus Streambank
wheatgrass
Native 5.5 2.0
Elymus elymoides Squirreltail Native 7.0 2.0
Thinopyrum intermedium Pubescent wheatgrass Introduced‡ 1.5 1.0
Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass Native 8.0 4.0
Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass Native 9.0 0.5
Festuca ovina Sheep fescue Native 9.0 1.0
Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama Native 13.0 1.0

Forbs
Achillea millefolium Common yarrow Native 23.0 0.5
Artemisia ludoviciana White sage Native 23.0 0.5

Total 118.0 21.0
†Seeding rate is for broadcast seed and presented as number of pure live seeds per ft2 and pounds of
pure live seed per acre. ‡Introduced refers to species that have been ‘introduced’ from another geographic region, typically
outside of North America. Also referred to as ‘exotic’ species.

Seeding rates are calculated from an expected field emergence for each species and the
desired number of plants per unit area. For purposes of calculation, field emergence for small
seeded grasses and forbs is assumed to be around 50% if germination is greater than 80%.
Field emergence is assumed to be around 30% if germination is between 60 and 80%. The
Natural Resource Conservation Service recommends a seeding rate of 20 to 30 pure live seeds
per square foot as a minimum number of seeds when drill seeding in areas with an annual
precipitation between 6 and 18 inches. Twenty pure live seeds per square foot, with an
expected field emergence of 50% should produce an adequate number of plants on the seeded
area to control erosion and suppress annual invasion. This seeding rate is primarily for
favorable growing conditions, soils that are not extreme in texture, gentle slopes, north or east
facing aspect, good moisture, and adequate soil nutrients. When conditions are less favorable
or when the seed is broadcast, seeding rates are increased up to a level that is two to four times
the drill rate for favorable conditions. A multiplier of 4x was used in establishing the proposed
seeding rate.

The quality assurance and quality control plan for seed application rates and procedures for
confirming that specified application rates are achieved is as follows. The first step begins with
a seed order. Seed will be purchased as pounds of pure live seed and will be certified for
percent purity and percent germination. When certified, a container of seed must be labeled by
the seed supplier as to origin, germination percentage, date of the germination test, percentage
of pure seed (by weight), other crop and weed seeds, and inert material. Certification is our
best guarantee that the seed being purchased meets minimum standards and the quality
specified. Once the seed is obtained, seed labels will be checked to determine the percent PLS
and the date that the seed was tested for percent purity and percent germination. If the test
date is greater than 6 months old, the seed will be tested again before being accepted.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
J-3 September 2011

J.3 SOIL FERTILIZATION AND ORGANIC MATTER AMENDMENT
The physical and chemical characteristics of the soil that will be used for the cover system are
presented in Appendix D. Based on this analysis, there are three soil properties that appear to
be deficient for sustained plant growth and will need to be treated prior to seeding and to ensure
that the soil provides adequate carbon and plant essential nutrients for initial plant
establishment and long-term sustainability. The soil properties that will need treatment include
percent organic matter, total nitrogen, and plant available potassium (Appendix D). The upper
30 cm of the water storage layer will be treated with a commercial organic matter amendment to
alleviate the existing deficiencies. This treatment will be applied after the water storage layer is
in place and before placement of the topsoil-gravel erosion protection layer. Further chemical
analysis will be conducted prior to placement of the water storage layer to verify the chemical
properties of this material and to finalize the proposed treatment. The current amendment
proposal is to add 1.5 tons/acre of Biosol®. Biosol® is an organic matter amendment that also
provides a balanced nutrient ratio that supplies plants with micro- and macro-nutrients for
sustained plant growth. In addition to providing a source of humus to alleviate the organic
matter deficiency, Biosol® also has a nitrogen content of 6% and a potassium (K2O) content of
3% that will effectively alleviate the nitrogen and potassium deficiency. Biosol® will be uniformly
spread over the surface of the water storage layer and mixed to a depth of 30 cm. The
proposed application rate will be adjusted up or down based on soil chemical analysis that is
conducted prior to placement of the water storage layer.

The topsoil-gravel erosion control layer will not be amended for organic matter or nutrients to
avoid the stimulation of undesirable weedy species. The addition of nutrients, especially
nitrogen, during revegetation is known to stimulate the growth of annual weeds at the potential
detriment of seeded perennial species. Withholding nutrient additions from the topsoil-gravel
cover will allow the seeded species to establish without the unwanted competition from
undesirable weedy species.

J.4 SEEDBED PREPARATION
Following placement of the topsoil-gravel erosion protection layer, the area will be harrowed to
reduce any compaction that may have occurred during placement of the cover and to create an
uneven surface for optimum seedbed conditions. Since seeding will be conducted with a
broadcast method it is critical for the soil surface to be loose and uneven, but also have a
firmness below the soil surface to allow proper seeding depth and to promote optimum seed-soil
contact for germination and initial plant establishment.

J.5 SEEDING
Seed will be applied using a broadcasting method as soon as practicable following seedbed
preparation. This procedure will use a centrifugal type broadcaster, also called an end-gate
seeder. These broadcasters operate with an electric motor and are usually mounted on the
back of a small tractor and generally have an effective spreading width of about 20 feet or more.
Prior to seeding, a known area will be covered with a tarp and seed will be distributed using the
broadcaster and simulating conditions that would exist under actual seeding conditions. Seed
will then be collected and weighed to determine actual seeding rate in terms of pounds per acre.
This process will be repeated until the specified seeding rate is obtained. During the seeding
process, the seeding rate will be verified at least once by comparing pounds of seed applied to
the size of the area seeded. In addition, seed will be applied in two separate passes. One-half

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report
Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc.
J-4 September 2011
of the seed will be spread in one direction and the other half of seed will be spread in a
perpendicular direction. This will ensure that seed distribution across the site is highly uniform
and also provide the opportunity to adjust the seeding rate if the specified rate is not being
achieved. Seeding will not occur if wind speeds exceed 10 mph.

Immediately following seeding, the area will be lightly harrowed to provide seed coverage and to
maximize seed-soil contact. This step in the revegetation process will ensure that the seed is
placed at an optimum seeding depth and in good soil contact for proper germination conditions.

Seeding will take place as soon as practical after the cover system is in place. Successful
seeding in southeastern Utah can occur either in late fall (e.g. October) as a dormant seeding,
with germination and establishment occurring the following spring or can be conducted in June,
prior to the summer monsoon season. The timing for seeding will be dependent upon the
construction schedule for the cover system.

J.6 MULCHING
A mulch will be applied immediately following seeding to conserve soil moisture for seed
germination and initial plant establishment. Mulching will also provide additional soil erosion
protection from both wind and water until a plant cover is established. A weed-free, wood-fiber
mulch will be applied to the seeded area at a rate of 1.0 ton/acre. Wood fiber mulch will consist
of specially prepared wood fibers and will not be produced from recycled material such as
sawdust, paper, cardboard, or residue from pulp and paper plants. The fibers will be dyed an
appropriate color, non-toxic, water-soluble dye to facilitate visual metering during application.
Wood fiber mulch will be supplied in packages and each package will be marked by the
manufacturer to show the air-dry weight.

The wood fiber mulch will be applied by means of hydraulic equipment that utilizes water as the
carrying agent. The mulch will be applied in a uniform manner at a minimum rate of 1.0
ton/acre. A continuous agitator action, that keeps the mulching material and approved additives
in uniform suspension, will be maintained throughout the distribution cycle. The pump pressure
will be capable of maintaining a continuous non-fluctuating stream of slurry. The slurry
distribution lines will be large enough to prevent stoppage and the discharge line will be
equipped with a set of hydraulic spray nozzles that will provide an even distribution of the mulch
slurry to the seedbed. Mulching will not be done in the presence of free surface water resulting
from rains, melting snow, or other causes.

A tackifier will be used with the wood fiber mulch to improve adhesion. The tackifier will be a
biodegradable organic formulation processed specifically for the adhesive binding of mulch. In
addition, the tackifier will uniformly disperse when mixed with water and will not be detrimental
to the homogeneous properties of the mulch slurry. Tackifier may be added either during the
manufacturing of the mulch or incorporated during mulch application. Tackifier will have
characteristics of hydrating and dispersing in circulating water to form a homogeneous slurry
and remain in such a state in the hydraulic mulching unit when mixed with the wood fiber mulch.
When applied, the tackifier will form a loose chain-like protective film, but not a plant inhibiting
membrane, which will allow moisture to percolate into the underlying soil, while helping bind
seeds to the soil surface during germination and initial seedling growth, after which the tackifier
will break down through natural processes.

Updated Tailings Cover Design Report

APPENDIX K

DURABILITY
ATTACHMENT H
ROCK TEST RESULTS
BLANDING AREA GRAVEL PITS
PREPARED BY
INTERNATIONAL URANIUM (USA) CORP.
INDEPENDENCE PLAZA
1050 17m STREET, SUITE 950
DENVER, CO 80265
!,
TO: Harold R. Roberts cc: William N. Deal
FROM: Robert A. Hembree
DATE: November 20, 1998
SUBJECT: Rock Test Results-Blanding Area Gravel Pits
Attached you will find the results for lab tests that were performed on rock samples obtained from
three gravel sources around the White Mesa Mill. These samples were taken from the Cow Canyon
pit located just north of Bluff ( 15 miles south of the mill), the Brown Canyon pit located on the east
side of Recapture Canyon four miles northeast of the mill, and the North Pit located one mile
northeast ofBlanding. A 75 pound sample of material was collected from each site, each sample
was crushed and screened to a +1/2 -1 ~inch size. Testing was performed by Western Colorado
Testing in Grand Junction, Colorado. All samples were tested for specific gravity, absorption, sulfate
soundness and L.A. Abrasion.
Test results indicate that all three sites score high enough to be used as rip rap sources for the
reclamation cover at the mill (see attached scoring calculations). The Cow Canyon site scores high
enough that there would be no over-sizing required; it is suitable for use in channels as well as on
side and top slopes. The Brown Canyon site requires the most over-sizing at nineteen percent (19%).
The North Pit material would require over-sizing of 9.35%. These test results prove that there are
sources of rip rap material within a reasonable distance of the mill site. The average over-sizing
factor for the three sites is 9.5%, which is well below the 25% number used in the 1996 reclamation
cost estimate. The over-sizing factor used in the Titan Design Study was also 25%.
Based on the results of the testing IUC could use any of these three sites. The North Pit would be
the most reasonable choice of material sites since it has a lower over-sizing factor than the Brown
Canyon site and is closer to the mill than the Cow Canyon site. The North Pit also has the advantage
of being an established public pit on BLM administered land.
RAH/rah
/
International Uranium (USA) Corp.
WHITE MESA MILL RECLAMATION
NRC Rip Rap Scoring Calculations
Weighting Factors for Igneous Rocks
Oversizing for side slopes, top slopes, and well drained toes and aprons
Rock Scoring less than 50% is rejected, rock scoring over 80% does not require oversizing
Cow Canyon Pit (Bluff)
Lab Test Lab Results Score Weight Score x Weight Max. Score
Specific Gravity 2.63 7.5 9 67.5 90
Absorption,% 0.47 8.25 2 16.5 20
Sodium Sulfate Sound.,% 0.2 10 11 110 110
L.A. Abrasion, % 6.4 7.5 7.5 10
Totals 201.5 230
Overall Score 87.611%
Oversizing none %
Brown Canyon Site
Lab Test Lab Results Score Weight Score x Weight Max. Score
Specific Gravity 2.525 5.5 9 49.5 90
Absorption, % 2.61 1.75 2 3.5 20
Sodium Sulfate Sound., % 5.5 7.5 11 82.5 110
L.A. Abrasion,% 10.3 4.75 4.75 10
Totals 140.25 230
Overall Score I 60.981%
Oversizing 19.02%
North Pit (N. Blanding)
Lab Test Lab Results Score Weight Score x Weight Max. Score
Specific Gravity 2.557 6.25 9 56.25 90
Absorption, % 2.84 1.25 2 2.5 20
Sodium Sulfate Sound., % 3.2 8.75 11 96.25 110
L.A. Abrasion, % 6.3 7.5 7.5 10
Totals 162.5 230
Overall Score I 70.651%
Oversizing 9.35%
WESTERN
COLORADO
TESTING,
INC.
529 25 1/2 Road. Su1te B-101
Grand !unction, Colorado 81 505
[phone] • Fax [phone]
International Uraniua USA Corporation
Independence Plaza
1050 17th Street
Denver, Colorado 80265
Attention: Mr. Bob Hembree
Reference: Rock Durability Testing
November 16, 1998
WCT #811898
As reque•tad, three ( 3) potential sources of r iprllp for use in
reclamation of tailinqa pond• in Blanding, Utah were tested for
rock durability. The riprap material was obtained, crushed to
testing size, and delivered to Western Colorado Te•tinq, I.no. by
the client. The three sources of material were tested for
specific gravity and absorption (ASTM Cl27), Sodium Sulfate
Soundneas (ASTM C88), and Los Angeles Abrasion (ASTM C131). The
results of the testing are provided below.
Dl1
Bulk specific Gravity, gtcc
sso Specific Gravity, gJcc
Apparent Specific Gravity, gfcc
Water Absorption, t
Sodium Sulfate Soundness, Avg. % Loss
L.A. Abrasion, t Loss @ 100 Rev.
IIIUlt
2.630
2.642
2.663
0.47
0.2
6.4
Paqe 2 "
International Uranium USA Corpor~tion
WCT #811898
November 16, 1998
B.ll II!Ult
Bulk Specific Gravity, q/cO·
SSD Specific.-Gravity, gfcc
Apparent·Spacific Gravity, gfcc
Water Abaorption, t
SodiWI> SUlfate Soundneaua, Avg. t Loss .
L.A. Abra8ion, t Loaa @ 100 Rev.
2.4~0
2.525
2.629
2.61
5.5.
10.3
·?fl;-flil~!!if:Jl·!t1l~ill!i1lil:~?l~~fjf~;l\illl~;rmJ~l1:lli!t~lf~1\.i1M~W.il\~\ri~~~~:~:~~~,i~;l.!ll.illi\:i!iili:i!;~l~JWl.I:[l;,fj .!:'ll;!;·:=!~l:::·:·::'.:::· •··
bl1
Bulk Specifig Gravity, qfcc
SSD Specific Gravity, qfee
Apparent specific Gravity, q_lcc·
Water Absorption, t
SodiWil Sulfate soundness, Avq. ,.Loss
L.A. Abrasion, t Loaa f 100 Rev.
,. '"'•'
111\llt
2~485
2.557
2.674.
2.84
3.2
6.3
If there are any questiona or if additional testing is needed,
pleeuse .··!eel free to contact our off ice,
Respecttully Submitted:
WU'l'DII COLOIU\DO t•R'IIBG, IIIC.
:Kyle Alpha
Construction Services Manager