The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRC-2012-002629 - 0901a06880344d96Energy Fuels Resources IU5FI) Inc. August 15,2012 DRC.2012-002629 VIA E-MAIL AND OVERNIGHT DELIVERY Mr Rusty Lundberg Director Utah Division of Radiation Control 195 North 1950 West PO. Box 144850 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850 Re: Radioactive Materials License DRC-04, Response to Utah Division of Radiation Control ("DRC") Round 1 Interrogatory on Reclamation Plan Revision 5.0, Second Submittal Dear Mr Lundberg* Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc (EFR) transmitted on May 31, 2012 the initial portion of our responses to DRC's Round 1 Interrogatories for White Mesa Mill Reclamation Plan Revision 5 0, which Denison received on March 28, 2012 As promised, this letter transmits the remainder of EFR's responses to DRC's Round 1 Interrogatories for Reclamation Plan Revision 5 0 Denison's responses to DRC's Round 1 Interrogatories on the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report will be submitted under separate cover Please contact me if you have any questions or require any further information. Yours very truly, ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC. Jo Ann Tischler Director, Compliance and Permitting cc: David C Frydenlund Dan L Hillsten John Hultquist DRC Harold R Roberts David E Turk Katherine A Weinel ' Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 225 Union Boulevard, Suite 600 Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: 303-974-2140 TRANSMITTAL @ MWH BUILDING A BETTER WORLD Date August 30, 2012 MWH Americas, Inc 3665 JFK Parkway, Suite 206 Fort Collins, CO 80525 Tel 970-377-9410 Fax 970-377-9406 To: Mr Rusty Lundberg Director - Utah Division of Radiation Control 195 North 1950 West Salt Lake City, UT 84004-4850 801 536 4250 From: Melanie Davis Job Number: 9001900 110602 Send Via: I I FedEx (two day) |^ Regular Mail I I FedEx (next day - afternoon delivery) Other I X I FedEx (next day - morning delivery) The following items are enclosed No of Copies Description 2 CDs - Files ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES - ROUND 1 FOR RECLAMATION PLAN, REVISION 5 0, MARCH 2012, This data is submitted I I At your request I I For your approval |~x] For your review Comments I I For your action I I For your files I I For your information I I Other (specify) Page 1of1 ATTACHMENT A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 01/1: ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORTS ATTACHMENT A.1 ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT IIHHII E NVIRONMENTAL ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp 6425 South Highway 191 Blanding, Utah1 August 1, 2012 Prepared for: Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance & Permitting Denison Mines 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, Colorado 80265 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Lono Folau Asbestos Inspector #ASB-0537 Jon H. Self Asbestos Program Manager IHI Project 12U-A1081 640 EAST WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TELEPHONE: 801-466-2223 FAX: 801-466-9616 E-MAIL: IHI@IHI-ENV.COM SALT LAKE CITY SAN FRANCISCO PHOENIX DENVER SEATTLE TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................1 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................2 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) ...............................................................2 3.2 Bulk Sampling ...................................................................................................2 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis ........................................................................................3 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS ....................................................................................................4 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................................4 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials ..................................................................4 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results ........................................................................4 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment .......................................................................5 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations ......................................................5 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................5 4.7 Inaccessible Areas ..............................................................................................5 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) .........................5 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS ......................................................................................................6 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations .....................................................................6 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) .................................................6 6.0 COST ESTIMATES ..........................................................................................................7 APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Tables Appendix B: Building Floor Plans Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Laboratory Results Appendix E: Asbestos Regulatory Factors Appendix F: Project Limitations Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill TOC - 1 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 30, 2012, IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the Administration Building at the Denison Mines White Mesa Mill site in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance and Permitting for Denison Mines, requested this inspection to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that exist in the building. ACM – IHI identified the following materials: • Vinyl floor tile and mastic (7,960 square feet) • Floor tile mastic (1,785 square feet) Conclusions Asbestos – IHI recommends that a Utah-certified asbestos abatement contractor remove and properly dispose of all the ACM in this building that may be disturbed during remodel or demolition activities. Cost Estimates IHI’s cost estimates for a Utah-certified asbestos abatement contractor to remove the ACMs outlined above are approximately $35,650. The estimated cost does not include travel expenses for an abatement contractor. These estimates do not include the costs for asbestos abatement design and management consulting services. The report that follows this Executive Summary should be read in its entirety because it includes important information, such as material descriptions and locations, regulatory requirements, and building-specific recommended response actions. Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill i IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Executive Summary Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Administration Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content Amount Cost Estimate(1) M004 5% >1% 1,395 sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: masticHallways 100A, 100B, 100C, Rooms 101, 103, 116 and Closet 120 Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement - 12" x 12" Tan vinyl floor tile and black floor mastic $4,687 M005 5% >1-6% 6,380 sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: masticThroughout floor of building Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement - 12" x 12" Off-white vinyl floor tile with green and black floor mastic $21,437 M005A 6%1,440 sq. ft.Chrysotile Throughout floor of building (under M005) Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM Coverings - Black tar mastic $4,838 M006 >1% 185 sq. ft.ND: tile Chrysotile: mastic Women's Restroom and Men's Restroom Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement - 12" x 12" Gray vinyl floor tile and black floor mastic $622 M007 >1% 1,600 sq. ft.ND: tile Chrysotile: masticChemical Laboratory 127 and Office 127F Floor Tile-Exposed - 12" x 12" Light tan vinyl floor tile $4,032 Cost Estimates include asbestos removal costs only; abatement design, management fees and replacement costs are not included. Please refer to Section 6.0 for more details. Note 1: Executive Summary Table Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Page 1 of 1 ASBESTOS INSPECTION Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp 6425 South Highway 191 Blanding, Utah 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 30, 2012 IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the Administration Building located at 6425 South Highway 191 in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, of Denison Mines Corporation, requested this inspection to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that exist in the facility. 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION • Building Identification Building Name .............................Administration Building Building Address ........................6425 South Highway 191, Blanding, Utah 84511 • Building Construction Building Construction Date .........1978 Renovations..................................Not known Building Type .............................Offices and laboratories Building Total Sq. Ft....................9,090 square feet Structural System ........................Concrete foundation with brick Exterior Wall Construction .........Brick and metal Floor Deck Construction .............Concrete Roof Deck Construction .............Metal Roof Construction .......................Metal • Floors Floors Above Grade .................... One (attic space-Room 121A) Floors Below Grade .................... None • Interior Finishes Floors ...........................................Carpet, vinyl floor tile, ceramic tile and concrete Walls ............................................ Wall system and brick Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill 1 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Ceilings ........................................ Suspended ceiling panels Attic ............................................. None Basement ..................................... None • Building Mechanical Heating Plant ............................... Not known Main Heating Distribution: .......... Forced air Cooling Plant ............................... Roof units Main A/C Distribution ................. Forced air 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) IHI visually inspected all accessible areas of the building to identify suspect ACM. To assess the condition and determine friability of the suspect materials, IHI visually examined and touched all accessible surfaces, structures, and mechanical systems within the building. Suspect ACM was identified and assessed by homogeneous areas. A homogeneous area is defined as a single material, uniform in texture and appearance, installed at one time, and unlikely to consist of more than one type, or formulation, of material. In cases where joint compound and/or tape has been applied to wallboard (gypsum board) and cannot be visually distinguished from the wallboard, it is considered an integral part of the wallboard and in effect becomes one material forming a wall or ceiling “system." Each homogeneous area was given a unique material identification (ID) number. Each ID number begins with a letter: "S" for surfacing materials, "T" for thermal system insulation, or "M" for miscellaneous materials. This letter is followed by a three-digit number, assigned in consecutive order. This number is used to identify that specific homogeneous area throughout the inspection report. 3.2 Bulk Sampling To determine the asbestos content of materials, IHI collected bulk samples from all accessible homogeneous areas of suspect ACM and submitted the samples to an accredited laboratory for analysis. Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill 2 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill 3 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 The number of samples collected from each homogeneous area generally followed the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations (40 CFR §763.86). Friable surfacing materials were sampled using the random sampling scheme given in the EPA publication 560/5-85-030a, titled "Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials." Bulk sample IDs collected during the inspection were entered on chain-of-custody forms for submittal to the analytical laboratory. 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis Bulk samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) and visual estimation according to the EPA Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples, EPA-600/M4-82-020. Samples were analyzed by Dixon Information Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah. Dixon Information is accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST-NVLAP) for bulk asbestos sample analysis, and is also accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and AHERA regulations define ACM as material containing greater than 1% asbestos by weight; materials containing 1% or less asbestos are not considered regulated ACM by the EPA. Further, the NESHAP regulations state that any sample found to contain less than 10% asbestos but greater than “none detected," by the visual estimation method used during PLM analysis, must be assumed to contain greater than 1% asbestos unless confirmed by NESHAP point counting analysis.1 Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.2 1 NESHAP point counting includes examining materials under a polarizing microscope using an eyepiece reticule that superimposes a grid of points over the field of view. 400 points are examined. 2 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) The laboratory reports can be found in Appendix D of this report. 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials The Executive Summary and Table 1 in Appendix A list all homogeneous areas that contain asbestos. Each material is described by type of material, friability and visual appearance. Friability is defined in accordance with EPA’s NESHAP regulations. • “Friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure and also includes non-friable ACM that may become friable during building demolition. • “Non-friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. • “Category I non-friable ACM” are asbestos-containing resilient floor coverings (commonly known as vinyl asbestos tile (VAT)), asphalt roofing products, packings, and gaskets. • “Category II non-friable ACM” encompasses all other non-friable ACM. • “Non-friable RACM” is used to denote thermal system insulation that is in good condition but would become friable during renovation or demolition and therefore is "regulated asbestos containing material" (RACM). 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials Homogeneous areas of suspect ACM are identified as non-ACM if material contains no detectable asbestos. Table 2, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all homogeneous areas that were found to be non-ACM. 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results Table 3, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all the bulk samples (chronologically by sample number) collected from homogeneous areas of suspect ACM, and the laboratory analytical results. Each sample was given a unique sample number. There may be more than Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill 4 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 one sample number for the same homogeneous area of suspect ACM indicating multiple samples were collected from that homogeneous material. The homogeneous areas of suspect ACM are identified on this table by their material identification numbers. The sample location listed on this table provides a brief, but specific, description of the location where the sample was collected. This is different from the homogeneous area location provided on Tables 1 and 2. Table 4 is the same as Table 3, except that the entries have been sorted by homogeneous area number. 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment Each homogeneous area of ACM was assessed for existing damage, accessibility, and potential for future damage, this information is presented in Table 5, located in Appendix A of this report. This table also lists the substrate beneath each homogeneous area of ACM. Damage and hazard assessment categories are included in the tables in Appendix A. 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations None 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials None 4.7 Inaccessible Areas Suspect materials that were hidden or inaccessible may not have been characterized by this inspection. Therefore, any material not identified in this report as having been tested should be treated as suspect ACM until it has been sampled by a Utah-certified inspector and analyzed by an accredited laboratory applying EPA methods. In addition, some building structures may have been constructed after the application of ACM, and therefore may have obscured these materials from visual examination during this inspection. Typical scenarios include thermal system insulation inside hardened mechanical chases, floor tile and mastic under walls, and sprayed-on texturing and fireproofing behind structural supports or architectural features. 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) None Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill 5 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill 6 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations In Utah, EPA asbestos regulations are administered by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ).3 The Utah Occupational Safety and Health Administration (UOSH) has adopted the Federal OSHA regulations.4 In addition, the Salt Lake Valley Health Department (SLVHD) regulates demolition activities in Salt Lake County.5 The SLVHD regulations for pre- demolition building inspections require an asbestos inspection, but also require building owners to inspect the building for other hazardous materials such as universal wastes, hazardous and toxic wastes, and lead-based paint. Like asbestos, these wastes, if present, must be removed prior to building demolition. Regulatory factors relevant to asbestos abatement decision-making are included in Appendix E. 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) A listing of ACM found during this inspection is presented in the Executive Summary at the front of this report, and in Appendix A, Table 1. NESHAP regulations require the removal of friable ACM and non-friable ACM that could become friable during demolition or renovation activities. Therefore, we recommend that all of the ACM in this building be removed and properly disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor if total demolition of the facility is planned, or those materials that will be impacted by renovation plans be removed prior to the commencement of renovation work. Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.6 Strict 3 R307-801. Asbestos, Utah Division of Air Quality Rules, Implementation of Toxic Substances Control Act Title II, Asbestos Certification, Asbestos Training, notifications and Asbestos Work Practices for Renovations and Demolitions (See www.airquality.utah.gov). 4 Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite Standards, Chapter D (Construction), Section 58; and Chapter Z (General Industry), Section 1001, Utah Occupational Safety and Health Rules and Regulations (Administered by Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division) (See www.uosh.utah.gov). 5 Salt Lake City – County Health Department, Health Regulation #1 Section 12 (See www.slvhealth.org). 6 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) Denison Mines/Admin. Building-White Mesa Mill 7 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 compliance by building owners with the OSHA asbestos regulations may result in response actions not required by the EPA and Utah DAQ for certain unregulated materials. 6.0 COST ESTIMATES Details of the estimated removal costs by homogeneous area can be found in Table 6, Appendix A, and in the Executive Summary table. These estimates are provided for budgeting and planning only, and do not have a level of accuracy sufficient to be used as a construction design cost estimate. The actual cost of asbestos removal is dependent on factors such as the size of the job, the required time frame for removal, the time of year the job is conducted, and economic factors. These estimates do not include replacement costs, or the cost for asbestos abatement design and management consulting services. Appendix A Data Tables Table 1 Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Administration Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content AmountFriability M004 12" x 12" Tan vinyl floor tile and black floor mastic Hallways 100A, 100B, 100C, Rooms 101, 103, 116 and Closet 120 5% >1% 1,395Category 1 Non-friable Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic M005 12" x 12" Off-white vinyl floor tile with green and black floor mastic Throughout floor of building 5% >1-6% 6,380Category 1 Non-friable Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic M005A Black tar mastic Throughout floor of building (under M005) 6%1,440Category 1 Non-friable The yellow floor adhesive does not contain asbestos. The black floor mastic contained asbestos. Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM sq. ft.Chrysotile M006 12" x 12" Gray vinyl floor tile and black floor mastic Women's Restroom and Men's Restroom >1% 185Category 1 Non-friable The gray vinyl floor tile did not contain asbestos. The black floor mastic underneath contained asbestos. Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement sq. ft.ND: tile Chrysotile: mastic M007 12" x 12" Light tan vinyl floor tile Chemical Laboratory 127 and Office 127F >1% 1,600Category 1 Non-friable The floor tile did not contain asbestos. However, the black floor mastic underneath contained asbestos. Floor Tile-Exposed sq. ft.ND: tile Chrysotile: mastic Asbestos Survey Report - Table 1 Administration BuildingPage 1 of 1 White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Note: A homogeneous area of suspect material is considered an Asbestos-containing Material (ACM) if any one sample contains greater than 1% asbestos Table 2 Homogeneous Areas That Do Not Contain Asbestos White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Administration Building Material DescriptionHomogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Amount M001 White joint compound, tan paper tape and white gypsum plaster Throughout interior walls of building 17,300 sq. ft.Wall System M002 2' x 4' White coating ceiling panel (wormy pattern) Throughout ceiling 8,500 sq. ft.Ceiling Tile M003 2' x 4' White coating ceiling panel (patches) Restrooms 118, 122 and patches in Rooms 116, 117, 119 and 126 260 sq. ft.Ceiling Tile M008 Off-white Transite cement panels On the inside of cabinets (3' x2') under the laboratory hoods in Rooms 126 and 127 8 unitsTransite Panel M009 Brown adhesive Throughout building 8,220 ln. ft.Cove Base Adhesive M010 Gray sealant Around ducts in Rooms 126 and 127. 20 ln. ft.Duct Sealant Asbestos Survey Report - Table 2 Page 1 of 1 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Sample Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Administration Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location AB-A1081-01 M001 Room 107-Safety Office NDWall System AB-A1081-02 M001 Room 122-Men's Restroom NDWall System AB-A1081-03 M001 Room 126-Metallurgical Laboratory NDWall System AB-A1081-04 M002 Room 107-Safety Office NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-05 M002 Room 122-Men's Restroom NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-06 M002 Room 127-Chemical Laboratory NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-07 M003 Room 116-Coffee Area NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-08 M003 Room 119-Training Room NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-09 M003 Room 126-Metallurgical Laboratory NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-10 M004 Room 116-Coffee Area 5% >1% Chrysotile-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-11 M004 Room 120-Custodial Closet 5% >1% Chrysotile-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-12 M004 Room 100-Waiting Area 5% >1% Chrysotile-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-13 M005 Room 111-Conference Room 5%Chrysotile-tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement Asbestos Survey Report - Table 3 Page 1 of 2 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location AB-A1081-14 M005 Room 121-Bioassay Room 5%Chrysotile-tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-15 M005A Room 121-Bioassay Room 6%ChrysotileFloor Tile Mastic AB-A1081-16 M006 Room 118-Women's Restroom >1% ND-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-17 M006 Room 122-Men's Restroom >1% ND-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-18 M007 Room 127F-Chief Chemist Office ND-tileFloor Tile-Exposed AB-A1081-19 M008 Room 126-metallurgical Laboratory (on cabinets under laboratory hood) NDTransite Panel AB-A1081-20 M009 Room 116-Coffee Area NDCove Base Adhesive AB-A1081-21 M010 Room 127-Chemical Laboratory NDDuct Sealant Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 3 Page 2 of 2 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 4 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Homogeneous Area Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Administration Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location AB-A1081-01 M001 Room 107-Safety Office NDWall System AB-A1081-02 M001 Room 122-Men's Restroom NDWall System AB-A1081-03 M001 Room 126-Metallurgical Laboratory NDWall System AB-A1081-04 M002 Room 107-Safety Office NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-05 M002 Room 122-Men's Restroom NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-06 M002 Room 127-Chemical Laboratory NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-07 M003 Room 116-Coffee Area NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-08 M003 Room 119-Training Room NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-09 M003 Room 126-Metallurgical Laboratory NDCeiling Tile AB-A1081-10 M004 Room 116-Coffee Area 5% >1% Chrysotile-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-11 M004 Room 120-Custodial Closet 5% >1% Chrysotile-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-12 M004 Room 100-Waiting Area 5% >1% Chrysotile-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-13 M005 Room 111-Conference Room 5%Chrysotile-tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-14 M005 Room 121-Bioassay Room 5%Chrysotile-tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-15 M005A Room 121-Bioassay Room 6%ChrysotileFloor Tile Mastic Asbestos Survey Report - Table 4 Page 1 of 2 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location AB-A1081-16 M006 Room 118-Women's Restroom >1% ND-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-17 M006 Room 122-Men's Restroom >1% ND-tile Chrysotile- mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement AB-A1081-18 M007 Room 127F-Chief Chemist Office ND-tileFloor Tile-Exposed AB-A1081-19 M008 Room 126-metallurgical Laboratory (on cabinets under laboratory hood) NDTransite Panel AB-A1081-20 M009 Room 116-Coffee Area NDCove Base Adhesive AB-A1081-21 M010 Room 127-Chemical Laboratory NDDuct Sealant Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 4 Page 2 of 2 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 5 Damage and Hazard Assessment by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Administration Building Homogeneous Area Number DamageSubstrate AccessibilityMaterial Type Assessment Category Disturbance Potential M004 X No Damage ContinuousCement LowFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement M005 X No Damage ContinuousCement LowFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement M005A X No Damage Rarely AccessedCement LowFloor Tile Mastic M006 X No Damage ContinuousCement LowFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement M007 X No Damage ContinuousCement LowFloor Tile-Exposed Asbestos Survey Report - Table 5 Page 1 of 2 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 6 Estimated Abatement Costs by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Administration Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Extended CostAmountUnit Cost M004 Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement 1,395 sq. ft.$3.36 $4,687 M005 Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement 6,380 sq. ft.$3.36 $21,437 M005A Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-AC 1,440 sq. ft.$3.36 $4,838 M006 Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement 185 sq. ft.$3.36 $622 M007 Floor Tile-Exposed 1,600 sq. ft.$2.52 $4,032 Total Estimated Abatement Cost $35,616 Note: Estimated abatement costs do not include replacement costs or costs for a consultant to manage the abatement. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 6 Page 1 of 1 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Homogeneous Area Number DamageSubstrate AccessibilityMaterial Type Assessment Category Disturbance Potential Damage Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was classified into one of the following seven categories, as specified in EPA’s AHERA regulations (40 CFR §763.88): (1) Damaged or significantly damaged thermal system insulation ACM. (2) Damaged friable surfacing ACM. (3) Significantly damaged friable surfacing ACM. (4) Damaged or significantly damaged friable miscellaneous ACM. (5) ACBM with potential for damage. (6) ACBM with potential for significant damage. (7) Any remaining friable ACBM or friable suspected ACBM. (X) Not applicable (material is non-friable surfacing or miscellaneous material). The damage categories are defined as follows: “Undamaged” means the material had no visible damage, or extremely minor damage or surface marring (i.e., a room full of floor tile with only two or three small corners chipped off of the tile). “Slight Damage” means the material had visible damage evenly distributed over less than 10% of its surface, or localized over less than 25% of its surface. “Significantly Damaged” means the material had visible damage that is evenly distributed over 10% or more of its surface or localized over 25% or more of its surface. Hazard Assessment Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was evaluated for accessibility and the hazard the material presents to building occupants and the general public. The assessment assumes a fully occupied building. “Inaccessible” means the material was located in an area that people had no reason to enter and could not access without special measures. One example would be above a solid ceiling. “Rarely-Accessed” identifies a material that was in a location that could be accessed but wasn't unless there was a specific needed. An example would be a pipe tunnel. Another example would be a high ceiling that is out of reach and not subject to any specific disturbances. “Periodic Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was accessible, was not occupied full time, but was accessed on a routine basis. An example would be a mechanical room or boiler room. “Continuous Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was occupied full time and was within reach of the occupants, or was frequently subject to direct disturbance. Examples would be exposed floor tile or a normal height ceiling. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 5 Page 2 of 2 Administration Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Appendix B Building Floor Plans 127 127F 127D 127B 127G 127E 127C 127A 126100C 126B 126A 124 125 122 120 118119 121 121A 123 123A 107 105 103 101 117 100B 116 109 111 113 115114112110100 100A 102104106108 19 6 18 21 9 3 17 5 2 11 16 7 20 10 8 14 15 4 1 12 13 Sample Location & Number10 Room Number Explanation 101 Asbestos-containing Floor Tile & Mastic Asbestos-containing Floor Mastic PROJECT No: SHEET: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: De n i s o n M i n e s C o r p . Wh i t e M e s a M i l l 64 2 5 S o u t h H i g h w a y 1 9 1 Bl a n d i n g , U T As b e s t o s & H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S a m p l e L o c a t i o n M a p DATE: DATE: DATE: REVISED BY: 640 E. Wilmington Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84106801.466.2223 ihi@ihi-env.com 0 5'10' 12U-A1081 1 of 1 Keith 07-11-2012 V:\ - 1 2 P r o j e c t s \ 1 2 U - A 1 0 8 1 D e n i s o n M i l l S i t e A s b e s t o s I n s p & M P \ D r a w i n g s \ 1 2 U A 1 0 8 1 . d w g , a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , 7 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 2 4 : 2 5 : 1 2 P M , k e i t h f , A N S I f u l l b l e e d B ( 1 7 . 0 0 x 1 1 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) Appendix C Photographs Photograph 1 The wall system did not contain asbestos. Photograph 2 All of the ceiling panels in the Administration Building were reported as none detected for asbestos. Photograph 3 The flooring that consists of vinyl floor tiles and black mastic contained >1% to 5% chrysotile asbestos. Photograph 4 These suspect panels used under the laboratory hood cabinets did not contain asbestos. Photograph 5 The cove base adhesive did not contain asbestos. Photograph 6 This gray duct sealant was reported as none detected for asbestos. Appendix D Laboratory Results DIXON INFORMATION INC.----------. MICROSCOPY,ASBESTOS ANALYSIS &CONSULTING A.I.H.A.ACCREDITED LABORATORY #101579 NVLAP LAB CODE 101012-0 June 14, 2012 Mr.Lono Folau IHI Environmental 640 East Wilmington Ave Salt Lake City, UT 84 106 Ref: Batch # 104899,Lab #HI 9703 -H1 9723 Received June 6.2012 Test report,Page I of 5 Denison Mines Corp . White Mesa Mill Administration Building 6425 S.Highway 191,Blanding, Utah Proj#12 U-A108 1 Sampled by Lono Folau,5/3 1/2012 Dear Mr. Folau: Samples H19703 through H19723 have been analyzed by visual estimation based on EPA- 600/M4-82-020 December 1982 optical microscopy test method, with guidance from the EPA/6001R-93/116July 1993 and OSHA ID 191 methods.Appendix "A"contains statementswhich an accredited laboratory must make to meet the requirements of accrediting agencies.It also contains additionalinformation about the method of analysis.This analysis is accredited byNVLAP. Appendix "A"must be included as an essential part of this test report.The data for this report is accredited by NVLAP for laboratory number 10I012-0.It does notcontain data or calibrations for tests performed under the AIHA program under lab code 101579. This report may be reprod uced but all reproduction must be in full unless written approval is received from the laboratory for partial reproduction.The results of analysis are as follows: Lab H19703.Field AB-AI081-1 Wall System This sample contains white paint,white limestone and gypsum plaster with fine mica,tan plantfiber paper,and white gypsum plaster with 1%fiberglass and 1%plant fiber.This sample is non- homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The paint is I%of the sample.The plaster with mica is 2%of the sample. The plant fiber paper is 3%of the sample. The white gypsum plaster is 94 %of the sample. '--t-----78 WES T 2400 SOUTH ·SOUTH SALT LAKE,UTAH 84115-3013 PHONE 801-486-0800 · FAX 80 1-486-0849 · RES.80 1-571-7695 .....J Batch #104899 Lab #H19703 -H 19723 Page '2 of 5 Lab H19704. Field AB-A I08 1-2 W all System Th is sample contains white paint. whitc gypsum plaster w ith fine mica.tan plant fiber paper,and white gypsum plaster with I%fiberglass.This sample is non-homogeneou s.As bestos is none detect ed. The paint is I%of the sample. The plaster with fine mica is 2%of the sample. Th e plant fibe r paper is 3%of the sample.The white gypsum plaster is 94 %of the sam ple. Lab H19705.Field AB-A 1081-3 Wa ll System Thi s sample co ntains white gypsum plaster with fine mica.tan and white plant fiber paper.and white gypsum plaster with I%fiberglass and 1%plant fiber.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is non c detected , The plaster with mica is 2%of the sample.The plant fiber paper is 23%of the sample.The whit e gypsum plaster is 75 %of the sample. Lab H I970f>.Field AB-A I08 1-4 Ce iling Tile (I ) This is a light gray sample with perlite.30%plant fiber.and 30%mineral woo l in resin binder with a white coating on one side.As hestos is none detect ed. The white coa ting is 1%of the sample. Lab H19707.Field AB-A 108 1-5 Ceiling Tile (I ) Th is is a light gray sample with perlite,25%plant fiber.and 30%mineral woo l in resin binder with a white coa ting on one side.Asbes tos is none detected . The white coating is I%of the sample. Lab H 19708.Field A B-A I08 1-6 Ce iling T ile (1) Thi s is a light gray sample with perlite. 25%plant fiber,and 35 %mineral woo l in resin binder with a white coating on o ne side.Asbestos is none d etected . The white coating is I%of the sample. Lab H19709.Field AB-A 108 1-7 Ce iling T ile (2) Th is is a ligh t gra y sample with perlite.20%plant fiber.and 15%mineral woo l in resin binder with a white coating on one side.Asbestos is none d etected. The white coating is I%of the sample. Batch #104899 Lab #H 19703 -H19723 Page 3 of 5 Lab H I97J O,Field A B-A J08 1-8 Ceiling Tile (2) Thi s is a light gray sample with per lite,20 %plant fiber.and J5%mineral wool in resin bin der with a white coating on one s ide.Ashestos is none detected. Th e white coating is 1%o f the sample. Lab HI 97 Jl.Field A13-AI 08 1-9 Ceiling Tile (2) This is a light gray sample with perlite.20%plant fiber.and 20%minera l wool in resin binder with a wh ite coating on one side.Asbestos is none detected . The white coating is %of the sample, Lab H 19712,Field AB-A I08 1-10 Floor Tile (I) Thi s is 5 %chrysotilc as bestos in a tan plastic and limestone tile. Note: Th e black mastic contains greater th an 1%chrysotlle ashesto s. The tile is grea ter than 99%of the sample. The b lack mastic is less than I%of the sample, Note :The morphology of the fibers in the plastic and limestone tile are consistent w ith chrysotile asbestos.Fiber size is too small for identi fication by measurement of refractive indices. Transmission Electron Mi croscop y (TEM)is recommended for final confirmation that this is chrysotilc asbestos. Lab H 197 13, Field AB-A 108 1-11 Floo r Ti le (I) Th is is 5 %ch rysotile asbestos in a tan plastic and limestone tile, Note:The black mastic co ntains greater th an 1%chrysotile as bestos, The tile is greater than 99%of the sample,The black mastic is less tha n I%of the sample, The anal ysis sens itivity is limited in the black tar material type due to trace layer. Note:The morphology of the fibers in the plastic and limestone tile are consistent with chrysotile asbestos.Fiber size is too small for identification by measurement of refractive indices. Transmission Electron 'Microscopy (TEM) is recommended for final co nfirmatio n that this is chrysotile asbestos, Butch #104899 Lab #1-11 9703 -1-11 9723 Page 4 of 5 Lab 1-1 197 14.Field AB-AI 081-12 Floor T ile (I)Mastic This is 5 %chrysotile asbestos in an off-white plastic and limestone tile. Note:The black mastic co ntains greater than 1%chrysoti le ashestos. Th e tile is 99%of the sample.The black mastic is I%of the sample. Lab 1-1 19715. Field AB-A 1081-13 Floor Tile (2) Thi s is 5 %chrysotile as bestos in an off-white plastic and limestone tile. Note:j 0 mastic. Note:The morphology of the fibers in the plastic and limestone tile are consistcnt with chrysotile asbestos.Fiber s ize is too small for identification by measurement of refr active indices. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) is recommended for final confirmation that thi s is chrysotile asb estos. Lab 1-1 197 16. Field AB-A I08 1-14 Floor Ti le (2) This is 5 %chrysotile as bestos in off-white plastic and limestone tile with surface debris. Note: The morphology.of the fibers in the plastic and limestone tile are consistent with chrysotile asbestos.Fiber size is too small for identi fication by measurement of refractive indices. Transmi ssion Electron Microscopy (TEM)is recommended for final confirmation that this is chrysotile asbestos. Lab 1-11 9717. Field AB-A I081-15 Floor Tile (2) Mastic This sample co ntains three types of material:Th e first type is white plaster;the second type is 6% chrysotlle as bestos in black tar:the third type is red binder.Th is sample is non-homogeneous, The first type is 40 %of the sample.The second type is 55%of the sample. Th e third type is 5'70 of thc sample. Lab 1-11 97 18.Fie ld AB-A1081-16 Floor Ti le (3) And Mastic Thi s sample co ntains three types of material:Th e first type is light gra y plastic and limestone tile: the second typ e is yellow resin mastic;the third type is greater th an 1%chrysotile asbestos in black tar mastic.Thi s sample is non -homogeneous. The first type is 98%of the sample .The second type is 1'70 of the sample,Th e third type is I%of the sample. Batch #104899 Lab #H 19703 -H19723 Page 5 of 5 Lab H 197 19,Field AB-A I08 1-17 Floor Ti le (3)And Mastic Thi s sample contains three types of material:The first type is light gray plastic and limestone;the second type is yellow resin mastic;the third type is greater than 1%chrysotile asbestos in black tar.Th is sample is non-homogeneous. The first type is greater than 98%of the sample,The second type is 1%of the sample,The third type is less than I%of the sample. Lab HI 9720, Field AB-'AI081-18 Floor Tile (4) This is a white plastic and limestone tile.Asbestos is none detected. Note: No mastic, Lab HI 972 \, Field AB-A I08 1-19 Transite Panel This is 10%plant fiber in hard gray cement. Asbestos is non e d etected. Lab H19722,Field AB-A 1081-20 Cove Base And Adhesive This sample contains two types of material:The first type is brown rubber and limestone;thesecond type is brown resin mastic.This sample is non-homogeneous,Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 99%of the sample.The second type is I%of the sample, Lab H19723,Field AB-A1081-21 Duct Sealant Th is is gray sealant with limestone and particulate.Asbestos is none detected . In order to be sure reagents and tool s used for ana lysis are not contaminated with asbestos, blanks are tested.Asbestos was none detected in the blanks tested with this bulk sample set. Very truly yours, Steve H.Dixon,President Analyst:Steve H.DiXOl;~~-'f=Date Analyzed:June 14,2012 Dixon Information Inc. 78 W est 2400 South South Salt Lake, Utah 84115 Phone:1-801-486-0800 Fax:1-801-486-0849 BULKANALYTICAL REQUEST FORM Turnaround Time -Circle One Batch Number /0 4 f'ffCJ Ru sh (24 hours $25.00 per sample) ~Non-rush (5 Working days $17.00 per sample) pen;son 1v1;....e~Co,"/-,-GJh ire M~S;o-A<.ft Name oflocation sample was taken at Ad,...i"i$f,.."dlon.l3u ;/</i/?e? Streetaddress sample was taken at t:.t'ZS S ...JI~A.u¥/9 1 ,B I....:d;"Y .U T Sampled by:Lone FoI~ Lab # ftV-AIOBI Samples Collected Date TimeDescriptionofSampleField# A.B-A/OSI I Z 3 Report to be sent to:.t~n D ~Iau..Billing to be sent to:=o---;----,,---,__ Company:1/71 5"Y;r-on ""en:taL Company:lIT/E/iv/ronnu.l7taL Address:t:.£!''£1t/;/",.;"dt.:¥1AYe Address:_ City:,su..State:rJr City:,,.----,State:_ Zip Code:g l{I ()~Zip Code:--:-:-_ Telephone #:flOI'¥b 6 ..Z:12 J Telephone #:,_ Fax #:go I·'16 6 •?t,/(,Fax #:_---;__-__---=-:__---- E-mail:IfOlaU@/hi.enY.tom PO #:_-L~'------'-'-'__=__"'_'___ 7 g 9 /0 F loov'"·H /e CI) Chain of Custody Date:'/~)J z...Time:_ Date:(,-1,-!b Time:)'\·XS Date :b -l :l .(J Time:II ~Cl Date:Time:_ Submission of asbestos samples for analysis and/or signing a chain of custody is the equivalent of submission of a purchase order and constitutes an agreement to pay for services provided at Dixon Information Incorporated standard schedule offees for services. Submitted by:~~. Received by U6 ~~~ Received by Analyst:~=~;;*'i------ Returned by Lab:_ Dixon Information Inc. 78 West 2400 South South Salt Lake,Utah 84115 Phone:1-801-486-0800 Fax:1-801-486-0849 BULKANALYTICAL REQUEST FORM Turnaround Time -Circle One Batch Number ;048")<:"j Rush (24 hours $25.00 persample) Non-rush (5 Working days $17 .00 per sample) {Jen;$on 1v1;..*,~CO"f"t.Jhi ;'e ~~o-.It(.ft Name oflocation sample wastakenat Ad,..i"isf,.alion./3";/./b7~ Streetaddress sample wastaken at I:.+,ZS s ....J,t&A",,~19 I .6'I "'::d;~"'.UT Sampledby:L on o FoIa-<,A... Lab # /2t.J-AIOBI Samples Collected Date TimeDescriptionofSample ;:'/001'r'11e CI) ;::'/00"f"-Ie.(I)M<lS f i Co F/DM .(;'Ie (20) EI'Ddf tiIe.(ZJ FloO('tf Ie.,...J /Yla>~:G AoQr'tde (5)a"".;J _sf/G r-Iu'l -('de {]J -.J _s;';c. £Ioo r /'i'It!.eO 7Yans;i~p",...e I L r 'I.Cove puc ~MlHes;ve Owe:!UJ.ll!Uft- Reportto be sent to:t~n D J=;;,/au.-Billing to be sentto:,=---,--,,---,--,_ Company:IIt'I E"Y;'-Dn l'Me#1:taL Company:If(/E/lV'/rannu.l?faL Address:'i""E Itj(/"..;Aafz:vl.Ave Address:---=_ City:,su..State:'tiT City:::--;State:_ Zip Code:g 'II /)~Zip Code:_ Telephone #:XO/·'/66-Z.2Z'J Telephone#:_ Fax#:gO/-'166 -9(, 16 Fax#:_-----:-.,..-_ E-mail:h'O/au@ilti-enV.~In PO #:_-L......"~L.'-':.::..~=_--,,..._-- Field # AS-AIM J. II 1 2. /do 1"1 IS' /~ 17 I~ /9 '2.0 2.1 Chain of Custody Submission of asbestos samples for analysis and/or signing a chain of custody is the equivalent of submission of a purchase order and constitutes an agreement to pay for services provided at Dixon Information Inco orated standard schedule offees for services. Submitted by:-:;;>~~l,.."."¥;".:;.=~---- Received by Received by AnaJyst.';;;:;~i.L-L...'.....!.f~----- Returned byLab:_ Appendix "A" "This report relates only to the items tested.This report must not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or AIHA." NVLA P and AIHA requires laboratories to state the condition of samplcs received for testing:These samples are in acceptable condition for analysis unless there is a statement in the report of analysis that a test item has some characte ristics or condition that precludes analysis or requires a modification ofstandard analytical methodology,If a test item is not acc eptable,the reasons for non-acceptability will be given under the laboratory number for that particular test item.The reported percentages of each material type arc based on the sample received by the laboratory and may not be representative of the parent material. Orientation of top and bottom may not be specified due to uncertainty oforientation. Methods of Analysis and Limit of Detection In air count analysis.the results may be biased when interferences arc noted. The accuracy of asbestos analysis in bulk samples increases with increasing concentration of asbestos.Pigments.binders. small sample size. and multiple layers may affect the analysis sensitivity. There arc two methods for analysis of asbestos in a bulk test sample.Visual estimation is the most sensitive method.If an analyst makes a patient search. 0.1 %or Icss asbestos can be detected in a bulk sample. The sceond method of analysis is a statistical approach called point counting. EPA will not accept visual estimations if a laboratory detects a trace of asbestos in a sample i.e.anything less than I%asbestos.Government agencies regulate asbestos containing materials (ACM)whenever the ACM is more than I%.OSHA requirements apply on samples containing any amount ofasbestos. Due to the higher charge for a point count analysis,Dixon Information Inc.does not perform a point count unless authorized to do so by the client.If a sample is point counted.when possible. various chemical and/or physical means may be used to concentrate the asbestos in the sample. This is permitted by the EPA method and it increases the accuracy of the analysis. Appendix E Regulatory Factors Several factors determine how asbestos in a building must be treated if it has the potential of being disturbed during a renovation or demolition. These factors include the following: Factor EPA Regulations for Asbestos Removal OSHA Regulations for Asbestos Removal Definition of asbestos in a building material Defines ACM as a material containing 1% or greater asbestos. Defines an ACM as one containing >1% asbestos. Regulation of asbestos in building materials Regulates only ACM. If the asbestos concentration in a material is shown to be “none detected” by initial analysis or 1% or less by point count analysis, EPA/DAQ does not regulate it. Regulates not only ACM but all materials containing any amount of asbestos. Regulations are not as stringent for materials containing equal-to or less-than 1% asbestos but greater than a “none detected” concentration. Determination of asbestos concentration in a gypsum board wall system Allows compositing of all layers (joint compound, joint tape, and gypsum board) into one sample, which decreases the possibility that the sample will be evaluated as an ACM. Requires that each layer of the wall system be analyzed and reported independently, which increases the possibility of a sample containing ACM or identifiable asbestos. Defines regulated and non-regulated ACM Yes – Regulated ACM include friable ACM and resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, gaskets and packing that have become friable and other ACM that have a high probability of becoming friable. No – Requirements for asbestos work procedures and worker training are less stringent for resilient flooring, asphalt roofing materials, and materials containing greater than “none detected” but not greater than 1% asbestos. Notification of asbestos abatement or building demolition required Yes – Utah DAQ must be notified on the appropriate form 10 working-days prior to an asbestos abatement of regulated asbestos material greater than the NESHAP-established notifiable quantity with demolition, or demolition where abatement is not required. No – Not required. Provision for allowing ACM to remain in a building during a demolition. Yes – Allows ACM resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, and certain other non- friable building materials in good condition to remain in a building during demolition as long as the demolition process will not render them friable. No – If any asbestos is left in a building during a demolition, the demolition workers are expected to meet the same OSHA requirements that an abatement contractor would meet if an abatement contractor was conducting an abatement of those materials. Appendix F Project Limitations PROJECT LIMITATIONS This Project was performed using, as a minimum, practices consistent with standards acceptable within the industry at this time, and a level of diligence typically exercised by EH&S consultants performing similar services. The procedures used attempt to establish a balance between the competing goals of limiting investigative and reporting costs and time, and reducing the uncertainty about unknown conditions. Therefore, because the findings of this report were derived from the scope, costs, time and other limitations, the conclusions should not be construed as a guarantee that all universal, toxic and/or hazardous wastes have been identified and fully evaluated. Furthermore, IHI assumes no responsibility for omissions or errors resulting from inaccurate information, or data, provided by sources outside of IHI or from omissions or errors in public records. It is emphasized that the final decision on how much risk to accept always remains with the client since IHI is not in a position to fully understand all of the client's needs. Clients with a greater aversion to risk may want to take additional actions while others, with less aversion to risk, may want to take no further action. ATTACHMENT A.2 MILL BUILDING, BOILER PLANT, SCALE HOUSE, AND THE SAMPLE PLANT ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT IIHHII E NVIRONMENTAL ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT Mill-Boiler Plant-Scale House-Sample Plant White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp 6425 S. Highway 191 Blanding, Utah 84511 August 1, 2012 Prepared for: Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance & Permitting Denison Mines 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, Colorado 80265 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Lono Folau Asbestos Inspector #ASB-0537 Jon H. Self Asbestos Program Manager IHI Project 12U-A1081 640 EAST WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TELEPHONE: 801-466-2223 FAX: 801-466-9616 E-MAIL: IHI@IHI-ENV.COM SALT LAKE CITY SAN FRANCISCO PHOENIX DENVER SEATTLE TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 BUILDINGS DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................1 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................2 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) ...............................................................2 3.2 Bulk Sampling ...................................................................................................3 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis ........................................................................................3 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS ....................................................................................................4 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................................4 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials ..................................................................5 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results ........................................................................5 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment .......................................................................5 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations ......................................................5 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................6 4.7 Inaccessible Areas ..............................................................................................6 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) .........................6 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS ......................................................................................................6 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations .....................................................................6 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) .................................................7 6.0 COST ESTIMATES ..........................................................................................................7 APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Tables Appendix B: Building Floor Plans Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Laboratory Results Appendix E: Asbestos Regulatory Factors Appendix F: Project Limitations Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill TOC - 1 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 31, 2012, IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the Mill Building, Boiler Plant, Scale House and the Sample Plant at the Denison Mines White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance and Permitting, requested this inspection to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that exist in the building. • No asbestos-containing material was identified in these buildings. The suspect asbestos materials identified in these buildings included wall systems on the second level of the Mill Building, floor tiles on the second floor of the Mill Building and the Scale House, and gasketing on the boiler in the Boiler Plant. No suspect asbestos material was identified in the Sample Plant. The report that follows this Executive Summary should be read in its entirety because it includes important information, such as material descriptions and locations, regulatory requirements, and building-specific recommended response actions. Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill i IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Executive Summary Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content Amount Cost Estimate(1) M004 12-15% >1-8% 2,140 sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic106A, 107C, 107D-Offices and 200-Lunch Room Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement - 12" x 12" Tan vinyl floor tile and black mastic $7,190 M004A 8%420 sq. ft.Chrysotile 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM Coverings - Black tar mastic $1,411 Cost Estimates include asbestos removal costs only; abatement design, management fees and replacement costs are not included. Please refer to Section 6.0 for more details. Note 1: Executive Summary Table Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Page 1 of 1 ASBESTOS INSPECTION Mill-Boiler-Scale House White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp 6425 S. Highway 191 Blanding, Utah 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 30, 2012, IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the Mill Building, Boiler Plant, Scale House and the Sample Plant of the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, of Denison Mines, requested this inspection to identify asbestos- containing materials (ACM) that exist in the facility. 2.0 BUILDINGS DESCRIPTION • Buildings Identification Buildings Name ...........................Mill Building, Boiler Plant, Scale House, and Sample Plant Buildings Address .......................6425 South Highway 191, Blanding, Utah 84511 • Building Construction Buildings Construction Date ........circa 1978 Renovations..................................Not known Building Type .............................Plant, offices, boiler Buildings Total Sq. Ft. .................33,330 square feet (Mill Building), 2,500 square feet (Boiler Plant), 400 square feet (Scale House), 1,250 square feet (Sample Plant) Structural System ........................Concrete foundation with steel (Mill Building and Boiler Plant), wood (Scale House), and concrete with brick (Sample Plant) Exterior Wall Construction .........Metal (Mill Building and Boiler Plant), wood (Scale House), and brick (Sample Plant) Floor Deck Construction .............Concrete (Mill Building, Boiler and Sample Plants), wood (Scale House) Roof Deck Construction .............Metal (Mill Building, Boiler Plant, and Sample Plant), wood (Scale House) Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill 1 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Roof Construction .......................Metal (all buildings) • Floors Floors Above Grade .................... One (except Mill Building-offices on second level) Floors Below Grade .................... None • Interior Finishes Floors ...........................................Concrete (Mill Building, Boiler and Sample Plant), vinyl floor tile (Scale House and Mill Building second level) Walls ............................................ Metal (Mill Building and Boiler Plant), brick (Sample Plant), wood (Scale House), and wall system (Mill Building second level) Ceilings ........................................ Metal (Mill Building and Boiler Plant), brick (Sample Plant), wood (Scale House), and wall system (Mill Building second level) Attic ............................................. None Basement ..................................... None • Building Mechanical Heating Plant ............................... Not known Cooling Plant ............................... Roof units 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) IHI visually inspected all accessible areas of the building to identify suspect ACM. To assess the condition and determine friability of the suspect materials, IHI visually examined and touched all accessible surfaces, structures, and mechanical systems within the building. Suspect ACM was identified and assessed by homogeneous areas. A homogeneous area is defined as a single material, uniform in texture and appearance, installed at one time, and unlikely to consist of more than one type, or formulation, of material. In cases where joint compound and/or tape has been applied to wallboard (gypsum board) and cannot be visually distinguished from the wallboard, it is considered an integral part of the wallboard and in effect becomes one material forming a wall or ceiling “system." Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill 2 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Each homogeneous area was given a unique material identification (ID) number. Each ID number begins with a letter: "S" for surfacing materials, "T" for thermal system insulation, or "M" for miscellaneous materials. This letter is followed by a three-digit number, assigned in consecutive order. This number is used to identify that specific homogeneous area throughout the inspection report. 3.2 Bulk Sampling To determine the asbestos content of materials, IHI collected bulk samples from all accessible homogeneous areas of suspect ACM and submitted the samples to an accredited laboratory for analysis. The number of samples collected from each homogeneous area generally followed the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations (40 CFR §763.86). Friable surfacing materials were sampled using the random sampling scheme given in the EPA publication 560/5-85-030a, titled "Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials." Bulk sample IDs collected during the inspection were entered on chain-of-custody forms for submittal to the analytical laboratory. 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis Bulk samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) and visual estimation according to the EPA Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples, EPA-600/M4-82-020. Samples were analyzed by Dixon Information Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah. Dixon Information is accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST-NVLAP) for bulk asbestos sample analysis, and is also accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and AHERA regulations define ACM as material containing greater than 1% asbestos by weight; materials containing 1% or less asbestos are not considered regulated ACM by the EPA. Further, the NESHAP regulations state that any sample found to contain less than 10% asbestos but greater than “none detected," by the visual estimation method used during PLM analysis, Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill 3 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill 4 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 must be assumed to contain greater than 1% asbestos unless confirmed by NESHAP point counting analysis.1 Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.2 The laboratory reports can be found in Appendix D of this report. 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials The Executive Summary and Table 1 in Appendix A list all homogeneous areas that contain asbestos. Each material is described by type of material, friability and visual appearance. Friability is defined in accordance with EPA’s NESHAP regulations. • “Friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure and also includes non-friable ACM that may become friable during building demolition. • “Non-friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. • “Category I non-friable ACM” are asbestos-containing resilient floor coverings (commonly known as vinyl asbestos tile (VAT)), asphalt roofing products, packings, and gaskets. • “Category II non-friable ACM” encompasses all other non-friable ACM. 1 NESHAP point counting includes examining materials under a polarizing microscope using an eyepiece reticule that superimposes a grid of points over the field of view. 400 points are examined. 2 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) • “Non-friable RACM” is used to denote thermal system insulation that is in good condition but would become friable during renovation or demolition and therefore is "regulated asbestos containing material" (RACM). 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials Homogeneous areas of suspect ACM are identified as non-ACM if material contains no detectable asbestos. Table 2, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all homogeneous areas that were found to be non-ACM. 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results Table 3, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all the bulk samples (chronologically by sample number) collected from homogeneous areas of suspect ACM, and the laboratory analytical results. Each sample was given a unique sample number. There may be more than one sample number for the same homogeneous area of suspect ACM indicating multiple samples were collected from that homogeneous material. The homogeneous areas of suspect ACM are identified on this table by their material identification numbers. The sample location listed on this table provides a brief, but specific, description of the location where the sample was collected. This is different from the homogeneous area location provided on Tables 1 and 2. Table 4 is the same as Table 3, except that the entries have been sorted by homogeneous area number. 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment Each homogeneous area of ACM was assessed for existing damage, accessibility, and potential for future damage, this information is presented in Table 5, located in Appendix A of this report. This table also lists the substrate beneath each homogeneous area of ACM. Damage and hazard assessment categories are included in the tables in Appendix A. 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations The inside of the metal boiler and metal boiler flue could not be accessed during the inspection. Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill 5 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill 6 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials None 4.7 Inaccessible Areas Suspect materials that were hidden or inaccessible may not have been characterized by this inspection. Therefore, any material not identified in this report as having been tested should be treated as suspect ACM until it has been sampled by a Utah-certified inspector and analyzed by an accredited laboratory applying EPA methods. In addition, some building structures may have been constructed after the application of ACM, and therefore may have obscured these materials from visual examination during this inspection. Typical scenarios include thermal system insulation inside hardened mechanical chases, floor tile and mastic under walls, and sprayed-on texturing and fireproofing behind structural supports or architectural features. 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) None 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations In Utah, EPA asbestos regulations are administered by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ).3 The Utah Occupational Safety and Health Administration (UOSH) has adopted the Federal OSHA regulations.4 In addition, the Salt Lake Valley Health Department (SLVHD) regulates demolition activities in Salt Lake County.5 The SLVHD regulations for pre- demolition building inspections require an asbestos inspection, but also require building owners to inspect the building for other hazardous materials such as universal wastes, hazardous and toxic wastes, and lead-based paint. Like asbestos, these wastes, if present, must be removed prior to building demolition. 3 R307-801. Asbestos, Utah Division of Air Quality Rules, Implementation of Toxic Substances Control Act Title II, Asbestos Certification, Asbestos Training, notifications and Asbestos Work Practices for Renovations and Demolitions (See www.airquality.utah.gov). 4 Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite Standards, Chapter D (Construction), Section 58; and Chapter Z (General Industry), Section 1001, Utah Occupational Safety and Health Rules and Regulations (Administered by Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division) (See www.uosh.utah.gov). 5 Salt Lake City – County Health Department, Health Regulation #1 Section 12 (See www.slvhealth.org). Mill-Boiler-Scale House-White Mesa Mill 7 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Regulatory factors relevant to asbestos abatement decision-making are included in Appendix E. 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) A listing of ACM found during this inspection is presented in the Executive Summary at the front of this report, and in Appendix A, Table 1. NESHAP regulations require the removal of friable ACM and non-friable ACM that could become friable during demolition or renovation activities. Therefore, we recommend that all of the ACM in this building be removed and properly disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor if total demolition of the facility is planned, or those materials that will be impacted by renovation plans be removed prior to the commencement of renovation work. Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.6 Strict compliance by building owners with the OSHA asbestos regulations may result in response actions not required by the EPA and Utah DAQ for certain unregulated materials. 6.0 COST ESTIMATES Details of the estimated removal costs by homogeneous area can be found in Table 6, Appendix A, and in the Executive Summary table. These estimates are provided for budgeting and planning only, and do not have a level of accuracy sufficient to be used as a construction design cost estimate. The actual cost of asbestos removal is dependent on factors such as the size of the job, the required time frame for removal, the time of year the job is conducted, and economic factors. These estimates do not include replacement costs, or the cost for asbestos abatement design and management consulting services. 6 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) Appendix A Data Tables Table 1 Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content AmountFriability M004 12" x 12" Tan vinyl floor tile and black mastic 106A, 107C, 107D-Offices and 200-Lunch Room 12-15% >1-8% 2,140Category 1 Non-friable Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic M004A Black tar mastic 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room 8%420Category 1 Non-friable The asbestos floor mastic is under non-asbestos floor tile and yellow adhesive. Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM sq. ft.Chrysotile Asbestos Survey Report - Table 1 Warehouse-Maintenance BuildingPage 1 of 1 White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Note: A homogeneous area of suspect material is considered an Asbestos-containing Material (ACM) if any one sample contains greater than 1% asbestos Table 2 Homogeneous Areas That Do Not Contain Asbestos White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Material DescriptionHomogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Amount M001 White joint compound, paper tape and gypsum plaster 100-Corridor, 101 and 102-Men's Lockers, 103-Women's Lockers and 200-Lunch Room 3,200 sq. ft.Wall System M002 Gray sheet vinyl flooring 100-Corridor, 101, 102, 103-Lockers and 105- Laundry 1,170 sq. ft.Vinyl Floor Sheeting M003 12" x 12" Pink vinyl floor tile 103-Women's Lockers 15 sq. ft.Floor Tile - Exposed M005 12" x 12" Gray Vfinyl floor tile and yellow adhesive 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room 420 sq. ft. There is asbestos black floor mastic underneath. Floor Tile - Exposed M006 Tan mastic 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room 90 ln. ft.Cove Base Adhesive M007 Brown mastic 106A, 107C and 107D-Offices 145 ln. ft.Cove Base Adhesive M008 Off-white mastic 100-Corridor, 101, 102, 103-Lockers, and 105-Laundry 240 ln. ft.Cove Base Adhesive Asbestos Survey Report - Table 2 Page 1 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Material DescriptionHomogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Amount M009 Gray sealant On ducts in 106-Warehouse and 107- Maintenance 30 ln. ft.Duct Sealant M010 White sink undercoat 107-Maintenance 1 unitSink Undercoat S001 White textured-plaster wall 100-Corridor, 101 and 102-Men's Lockers, 103-Women's Lockers and 200-Lunch Room 3,200 sq. ft.Surfacing Material Asbestos Survey Report - Table 2 Page 2 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Sample Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-01 S001 100-Corridor NDSurfacing Material A1081S-02 S001 102-Men's Locker Room NDSurfacing Material A1081S-03 S001 103A-Women's Restroom NDSurfacing Material A1081S-04 M001 101-Men's Lockers NDWall System A1081S-05 M001 200-Lunch Room NDWall System A1081S-06 M001 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDWall System A1081S-07 M002 102-Men's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-08 M002 100-Corridor NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-09 M002 103-Women's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-10 M003 103-Women's Locker Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-11 M004 200-Lunch Room 12%Chrysotile: tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-12 M004 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 15% >1% Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-13 M004A 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 8%ChrysotileFloor Tile Mastic A1081S-14 M005 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-15 M006 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDCove Base Adhesive Asbestos Survey Report - Table 3 Page 1 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-16 M007 1107C-Electrical Foreman's Office NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-17 M008 102-Men's Locker Room NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-18 M009 106-Warehouse NDDuct Sealant A1081S-19 M010 107-Maintenance NDSink Undercoat Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 3 Page 2 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 4 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Homogeneous Area Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-04 M001 101-Men's Lockers NDWall System A1081S-05 M001 200-Lunch Room NDWall System A1081S-06 M001 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDWall System A1081S-07 M002 102-Men's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-08 M002 100-Corridor NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-09 M002 103-Women's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-10 M003 103-Women's Locker Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-11 M004 200-Lunch Room 12%Chrysotile: tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-12 M004 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 15% >1% Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-13 M004A 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 8%ChrysotileFloor Tile Mastic A1081S-14 M005 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-15 M006 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-16 M007 1107C-Electrical Foreman's Office NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-17 M008 102-Men's Locker Room NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-18 M009 106-Warehouse NDDuct Sealant A1081S-19 M010 107-Maintenance NDSink Undercoat A1081S-01 S001 100-Corridor NDSurfacing Material A1081S-02 S001 102-Men's Locker Room NDSurfacing Material Asbestos Survey Report - Table 4 Page 1 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-03 S001 103A-Women's Restroom NDSurfacing Material Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 4 Page 2 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 5 Damage and Hazard Assessment by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number DamageSubstrate AccessibilityMaterial Type Assessment Category Disturbance Potential M004 X No Damage Rarely AccessedCement LowFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement M004A X No Damage Rarely AccessedCement LowFloor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM Coverings Damage Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was classified into one of the following seven categories, as specified in EPA’s AHERA regulations (40 CFR §763.88): (1) Damaged or significantly damaged thermal system insulation ACM. (2) Damaged friable surfacing ACM. (3) Significantly damaged friable surfacing ACM. (4) Damaged or significantly damaged friable miscellaneous ACM. (5) ACBM with potential for damage. (6) ACBM with potential for significant damage. (7) Any remaining friable ACBM or friable suspected ACBM. (X) Not applicable (material is non-friable surfacing or miscellaneous material). The damage categories are defined as follows: “Undamaged” means the material had no visible damage, or extremely minor damage or surface marring (i.e., a room full of floor tile with only two or three small corners chipped off of the tile). “Slight Damage” means the material had visible damage evenly distributed over less than 10% of its surface, or localized over less than 25% of its surface. “Significantly Damaged” means the material had visible damage that is evenly distributed over 10% or more of its surface or localized over 25% or more of its surface. Hazard Assessment Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was evaluated for accessibility and the hazard the material presents to building occupants and the general public. The assessment assumes a fully occupied building. “Inaccessible” means the material was located in an area that people had no reason to enter and could not access without special measures. One example would be above a solid ceiling. “Rarely-Accessed” identifies a material that was in a location that could be accessed but wasn't unless there was a specific needed. An example would be a pipe tunnel. Another example would be a high ceiling that is out of reach and not subject to any specific disturbances. “Periodic Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was accessible, was not occupied full time, but was accessed on a routine basis. An example would be a mechanical room or boiler room. “Continuous Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was occupied full time and was within reach of the occupants, or was frequently subject to direct disturbance. Examples would be exposed floor tile or a normal height ceiling. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 5 Page 1 of 1 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 6 Estimated Abatement Costs by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Extended CostAmountUnit Cost M004 Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement 2,140 sq. ft.$3.36 $7,190 M004A Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-AC 420 sq. ft.$3.36 $1,411 Total Estimated Abatement Cost $8,602 Note: Estimated abatement costs do not include replacement costs or costs for a consultant to manage the abatement. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 6 Page 1 of 1 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Appendix B Building Floor Plans Men's Locker Room 102 Men's Restroom 102A Shower 102B Storage 102B 100 Closet 100A Men's Locker Room 101 Laundry 105 Women's Locker Room 103 Women's Restroom 103A Warehouse 106 107A 106B 107B 106A 107C 107D Maintenance 107 Electrical 108 Carpenter 110 109 111A Rubbering 111 2 18 717 1 8 4 10 3 9 20 6 15 14 19 16 12 13 Lunch Room 200 Storage 200B Storage 200A 11 5 Second Floor Sample Location & Number10 Room Name & Number Explanation 101 Asbestos-containing Floor Tile & Mastic Asbestos-containing Floor Mastic PROJECT No: SHEET: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: De n i s o n M i n e s C o r p . Wh i t e M e s a M i l l 64 2 5 S o u t h H i g h w a y 1 9 1 Bl a n d i n g , U T As b e s t o s & H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S a m p l e L o c a t i o n M a p DATE: DATE: DATE: REVISED BY: 640 E. Wilmington Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84106801.466.2223 ihi@ihi-env.com 0 10'20' 12U-A1081 1 of 1 Keith 07-11-2012 V:\ - 1 2 P r o j e c t s \ 1 2 U - A 1 0 8 1 D e n i s o n M i l l S i t e A s b e s t o s I n s p & M P \ D r a w i n g s \ 1 2 U A 1 0 8 1 . d w g , w a r e h o u s e , 7 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 1 1 : 2 0 : 3 1 A M , k e i t h f , A N S I f u l l b l e e d B ( 1 7 . 0 0 x 1 1 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) Appendix C Photographs Photograph 1 The surfacing material and the wall system did not contain asbestos. Photograph 2 This gray vinyl sheet flooring did not contain asbestos. Photograph 3 The vinyl floor tile and black mastic contained >1- 15% chrysotile asbestos. Photograph 4 The cove base adhesive used in the building did not contain asbestos. Photograph 5 The gray duct sealant was reported as none detected for asbestos. Photograph 6 This sink undercoat in the maintenance area did not contain asbestos. Appendix D Laboratory Results ,.......----- -DIXON INFORMATION INC.--------, MICROSCOPY,ASBESTOS ANALYSIS &CONSULTING A.I.H.A.ACCREDITED LABORATORY #101579 NVLAP LAB CODE 101012-0 June 6,2012 Mr. Lono Folau IHl Environ mental 640 East Wilmington Ave Salt Lake City.UT 84106 Ref: Batch #104900,Lab #H19724 -H19743 Received June 6,2012 Test report.Page I of 5 Denison Mines White Mesa Mill Shop 6425 S.Highway 191,Blanding,Utah Sampled by Lono Folau, 5/30/20 12 Dear Mr. Folau: Samples H19724 through 11 19743 have been analyzed by visual estimation based on EPA- 600 /M4-82-020 December 1982 optical microscopy test method ,with guidance from the EPA/600/R-93/l 16 July 1993and OSHA ID 19 1methods.Appendix "A"containsstatements which an accredited laboratory must make to meet the requirements of accrediting agencies.It also contains additional information aboutthe method ofanalysis.Thisanalysis is accredited by NVLAP. Appe ndix "A"must be included as an essential part ofthis test report.The data for this report is accredited by NVLAP for laboratory number 101012-0.It does not con tain data or calibrations for tests performed under the AIHA program under lab code 101579. This report may be reproduced but all reproduction must be in full unless written approva l is received from the laboratory for partial reproduction.TIle results ofanalysis are as follows: Lab H 19724.Field A I081S-I Sur facing Material This sample contains three types ofmaterial: The first type is white paint layers:the second type is yellow mastic:the third type is off-white gypsum plaster with mica.This sample is non- homogeneous.Asbestos is none de tected. .The first type is 49%ofthe sample.The second type is 1%ofthe sample.The third type is 50%of t'he sample. '--+---- -78 WEST 2400 SOUTH ·SOUTH SALT LAKE ,UTAH 84115 -3013 PHONE 801-486-0800 · FAX 801-486-0849 ·RES.801-571-7695 Batch =104900 Lab =H19724 -HI 9743 Page:'of 5 Lab HI 9715.Field '\IOS1S-")Surfacing Material Thi s sample contains three type s ofmat eria l:The first type is white paint layers:the second type is off-white limestone plaster with mica: the third type is brown plant fiber paper. This sample is non- hom ogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 40%of the sample.Th e second type is 59%of the samp le.The third type is I%of the sample. Lab H197")6 .Field A I081S-3 Surfacing Material This sample contains three types of material:The first type is white paint:the second type is off- white lime stone plaster:the third type is off-wh ite plant tiber paper.This sample is non- hom ogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 5% of the sample. The second type is 92%of the sample .The third type is 3%of the sample. Lab H19727.f ield A1081S-4 Wall System This sample contains four types of material: Th e first type is off-white gyps um plaster with mica: the second type is 5%cross woven fiberglass in off-white limestone plaster with mica:the third type is off-white and brown plant fiber paper layers:the fourth type is 1%plant tiber in wh ite gypsum plaster.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 5%of the sample.The second type is 5%of the sample.The third type is 5%of the sample.The fourt h type is 85%ofthe sample. Lab H197! 8.Field '\108 I S-5 \\'all System This sa mple contains off-white paint.white limestone plaster with .bro wn and off-wh ite plant tibe r paper.and white gypsum plaster with 1%plant fiber.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The paint is I%of the sample.The plaster with limestone is 9% of the sample"The pla nt tiber paper is 5%ofthe sample.The white gypsum plaster is 85%of the sample. Lab HI97!9.Field A I081S-6 Wall System Thi s sample contains wh ite paint.white gypsum plaster with mica .brown and off-white plant fiber paper.and wh ite gypsum plaster wit h 1%plan t fiber. Th is sample is non-homogeneou s"Asbestos is no ne detected. The paint is 1% of the sample.The plaste r with mica is 9% of the sample.The plant fiber paper is 5%of the sample.The white gypsum plaster is 85%ofthe sample. Batch "104900 Lab #1-/1 9724 -H 19743 Page 3 of 5 Lab 1-/1 9730.Field A 1OS 1S-7 Vinvl Floor Sheeting This sample contains two types ofmaterial:The first type is gray plastic :the second type is 35% plant fiber.5%fiber glass and 5%synthetic fiber in gray bindcr. This sample is non-homogeneous. Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 60%of the sample.The seco nd type is 40%ofthc sample. ~ab 11 19731. Field Al 081S-8 Vinyl Floo r Sheeting Th is sample contains two type s ofmaterial:The first type is off-white paint:the second type is gray rubber and limestone.Thi s sample is non-homogene ous. Asbestos is none d etected. Th e first type is 1%of the sample.The second type is 99%ofthe sample. Lab H19737 .Field A l 081S-9 Vinyl Floor Sheeting This sample contains two types of material:The first type is white paint:the seco nd type is gray rubber and limestone.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected . The first type is I%of the sample. The second type is 99% of the sample. Lab 1-1 19733.Field A I081S-10 Floor Tile This is pink plastic and limestone tile with debris on the surface. Asbestos is no ne detected. Lab H19 7'4.Field AI08 1S-l l Floor Tile Thissample contains three types ofmaterial:The first type is 12%ebrysotile asbestos in tan plastic and limestone tile:the second type is black tar mast ic:the third type is gray sandy plaster.Th is sample is non-homogeneous. The first type is 98%of thc sample. The second type is 1%ofthc sample.The third type is 1%of the sample. Lab 111 9735. Field A1081S-Il Floor Tile This is 15%chrysotile asbestos in a tan plastic and limestone tile. Note: The black tar mastic contains greater than 1%ch rysotile asbestos. The tile is 99%ofthe sample.The black tar mast ic is 1%of thc sample. Lab 1-/19736.Field A1081S-13 Floor Tile Mastic This is 8%ch rys otile asb estos in black tar mas tic. Batch"104900 Lab #HI9724 -HI 9743 Page 4 of5 Lab II 1973 7.Field .';'1 OS 1S-14 Floor Tile This is a gray plastic and limestone tile with yellow resin mastic . Asbestos is none d etected. The tile is 99%of the sample. Th e mastic is 1%of the sample. Lab 11 IQ/38 .Field AI08 1S-15 Cove Base Adhesive (Tan) This sample contains three types of material:The first type is tan mastic with limestone:the second type is white paint:the third type is white limestone plaster with mica.This sample is non- homogeneous.As bestos is none detected. The first type is 94%of the sample. The second type is 1%of the sam ple.The third type is 5%of the sample. Lab 11 19739.Field A I081S-16 CO\'e Base Adhesive (Brown) This sample contains two types of material:The first type is brown resin mastic:the second type is white limestone plaster with mica.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected . The first type is 80%of the sample. The second type is 20% of the sample. Lab 11 19740 .Field A 108IS-17 Cove Base Adhesive This sample contains two types of material:The first type is tan mastic with limestone:the second type is brown plant fiber paper. This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 99%of the sample.The second type is 1%of the sample. Lab H I974 1.Field A I081S-I8 Duct Sealant This is gray sealant with limestone.Asbestos is no ne detected. Lab HI 974".Field A1081S-19 Sink lindercoat This is 5%organic fiber in white binder with limestone and mica.Asbes tos is none detected. Batch s 104900 Lab s HI 9724 -H19743 Page 5 of 5 Lab H19743.Field AI081S-10 Surfacing Material This sample contains three types of material: The first type is off-white paint:the second type is off- white limestone plaster with mica:the third type isoff-white gypsum plaster with mica.This sampl e is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 10%ofthe sample.The second type is 45% of the sample.The third type is 45% of the sample. In order to be sure reagents and tools used for analysis are not con taminated with asbestos. blanks are tested.Asbestos was none detected in the blanks tested with this bulk sample set. Very truly yours, ~.IJC Steve H.o(on,President ~" Dixon Information Inc. 78 West 2400 South South Salt Lake,Utah 84115 Phone:1-801-486-0800 Fax:1-801-486-0849 BULK ANALYTICAL REQUEST FORM Turnaround Time -Circle One Batch Number IDlJ gOO Rush (24 hours $25.00 per sample) Non-rush (5 Working days $17.00 per sample) /)el1;s.1?M/"es -p/,;,J-e M~.s....M ill. Name oflocation sample was taken at::-:--=s:""h!..!o<-;e=--c--c-__-,-::-:----::-c-_-;-__---:::--_ Street address sample was taken at 6¥25"S:g,~hw"'tl/t)1 13/""",eI'nq ur Sampled by:.I.0!?a h /<:lLL..'oJ Description of Sample Report to be sent to:L .,",0 Fa1",«- Company:117'1 r"l1/ronmcnfaf Address:c.ro.l!.N //m ln"-tk,,,we City:$1,c.State:c/U T Zip Code:¥'/IlJ ~ Telephone #:caDI)%6 -Z2Z3 Fax #:("01)i"·,"/~ E-mail:Il"o/~&iltl -e......CoM. Lab # 12 V-A./oal _ Samples Collected Date Time Billingto be sent to:----:-_ Company:I HI L'n ",'ronn7~'lot.../ Address:-----:::-_ City:State:_ Zip Code:,-c-_ Telephone #:_ Fax #:_-;-::-:-;----:-:-::-::-:-_ PO #:_-'--_-'------"'-'_ Floot"tile f:{ool a le. Field # A l oalS- II {'Z. !3 Flo",..(de. ~V~bose:dlu:s.'ve..,(ra., ) Col''''-"'oS'"..d hes/....t!:.-('-raul,.,) /1 S'nfc .H7det"c.o~-{- S'~y.f4.Co,;>!!,.,.,,,,,--f~;&d- Chain ofCustody Submission of asbestos samples for analysis and/or signing a chain of custody is the equivalent of submission of a purchase order and constitutes an agreement to pay for services provided at Dixon Informat~Inc::g'0rated standard schedule offees for services, Submitted by:~-'.::Date:'I'-11 ~Time:_ Received b~':Q;;:;:;;;;Date:U ;;Time:\~'l..() Received by Analyst:~-Date:t:.f 2 -/L Time:/bdJ Returned by Lab:Date:Time: _ Appendix"A" "This report relates only to the items tested. Thi s repo rt must not be used to claim prod uct endorsement by NVLAP or A IHA ." NV LA P and A IHA requires laboratories to state the conditio n of samples received for testing: Th ese samples are in acceptable co ndition for analysis unless there is a statement in the report of analysis that a test item has some character istics or condition that precludes analysis or req uires a modification of standard analytica l methodology.II'a test item is not acceptable,the reasons for non-acce ptability will be give n under the lab oratory num ber for that particular test itcm.The reported percentages of each material type are based on the sample recei ved by the laboratory and may not be representative of the parent material.Or ientation of top and bottom may not be specified due to uncertainty of orientation. M ethods of Ana lysis and Limit of Detection in a ir count analysis.the results may be biased when interferences arc noted. The accuracy of asbestos analysis in bulk samples increases with increasing concentration of asbestos.Pigment s.binders. small sample size.and multiple layers may affect the analysis sensitivity. There are two methods for ana lysis of as bestos in a bulk test sample. Visual esti mation is the most sensitive method.If an analyst makes a patient sea rch. 0.1%or less asbestos can be detected in a bulk sample. The second method of analysis is a statistical approac h ca lled po int counting.EPA will not acc ept visual estimations if a laboratory detects a trace of asbestos in a sample i.e.anything less than I%asbesto s.Government age ncies regulate asbestos containing materials (AC M) whenever the ACM is more than I%.OS HA require men ts apply on samples co ntaining any amount of asbestos. Due to the higher charge for a point count analysis,Dixon Information Inc.does not perform a point count unless authorized to do so by the client.If a sample is po int counted,when possible,various chemica l andlor physical means may be used to concentrate the asbestos in the sample.This is permitted by the EPA method and it increases the accuracy of the analysis. Appendix E Regulatory Factors Several factors determine how asbestos in a building must be treated if it has the potential of being disturbed during a renovation or demolition. These factors include the following: Factor EPA Regulations for Asbestos Removal OSHA Regulations for Asbestos Removal Definition of asbestos in a building material Defines ACM as a material containing 1% or greater asbestos. Defines an ACM as one containing >1% asbestos. Regulation of asbestos in building materials Regulates only ACM. If the asbestos concentration in a material is shown to be “none detected” by initial analysis or 1% or less by point count analysis, EPA/DAQ does not regulate it. Regulates not only ACM but all materials containing any amount of asbestos. Regulations are not as stringent for materials containing equal-to or less-than 1% asbestos but greater than a “none detected” concentration. Determination of asbestos concentration in a gypsum board wall system Allows compositing of all layers (joint compound, joint tape, and gypsum board) into one sample, which decreases the possibility that the sample will be evaluated as an ACM. Requires that each layer of the wall system be analyzed and reported independently, which increases the possibility of a sample containing ACM or identifiable asbestos. Defines regulated and non-regulated ACM Yes – Regulated ACM include friable ACM and resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, gaskets and packing that have become friable and other ACM that have a high probability of becoming friable. No – Requirements for asbestos work procedures and worker training are less stringent for resilient flooring, asphalt roofing materials, and materials containing greater than “none detected” but not greater than 1% asbestos. Notification of asbestos abatement or building demolition required Yes – Utah DAQ must be notified on the appropriate form 10 working-days prior to an asbestos abatement of regulated asbestos material greater than the NESHAP-established notifiable quantity with demolition, or demolition where abatement is not required. No – Not required. Provision for allowing ACM to remain in a building during a demolition. Yes – Allows ACM resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, and certain other non- friable building materials in good condition to remain in a building during demolition as long as the demolition process will not render them friable. No – If any asbestos is left in a building during a demolition, the demolition workers are expected to meet the same OSHA requirements that an abatement contractor would meet if an abatement contractor was conducting an abatement of those materials. Appendix F Project Limitations PROJECT LIMITATIONS This Project was performed using, as a minimum, practices consistent with standards acceptable within the industry at this time, and a level of diligence typically exercised by EH&S consultants performing similar services. The procedures used attempt to establish a balance between the competing goals of limiting investigative and reporting costs and time, and reducing the uncertainty about unknown conditions. Therefore, because the findings of this report were derived from the scope, costs, time and other limitations, the conclusions should not be construed as a guarantee that all universal, toxic and/or hazardous wastes have been identified and fully evaluated. Furthermore, IHI assumes no responsibility for omissions or errors resulting from inaccurate information, or data, provided by sources outside of IHI or from omissions or errors in public records. It is emphasized that the final decision on how much risk to accept always remains with the client since IHI is not in a position to fully understand all of the client's needs. Clients with a greater aversion to risk may want to take additional actions while others, with less aversion to risk, may want to take no further action. ATTACHMENT A.3 MAINTENANCE-WAREHOUSE FACILITY ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT IIHHII E NVIRONMENTAL ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT Maintenance-Warehouse White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corporation 6425 South Highway 191 Blanding, Utah August 1, 2012 Prepared for: Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance & Permitting Denison Mines 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, Colorado 80265 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Lono Folau Asbestos Inspector #ASB-0537 Jon H. Self Asbestos Program Manager IHI Project 12U-A1081 640 EAST WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TELEPHONE: 801-466-2223 FAX: 801-466-9616 E-MAIL: IHI@IHI-ENV.COM SALT LAKE CITY SAN FRANCISCO PHOENIX DENVER SEATTLE TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................1 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................2 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) ...............................................................2 3.2 Bulk Sampling ...................................................................................................3 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis ........................................................................................3 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS ....................................................................................................4 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................................4 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials ..................................................................4 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results ........................................................................5 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment .......................................................................5 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations ......................................................5 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................5 4.7 Inaccessible Areas ..............................................................................................5 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) .........................6 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS ......................................................................................................6 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations .....................................................................6 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) .................................................6 6.0 COST ESTIMATES ..........................................................................................................7 APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Tables Appendix B: Building Floor Plans Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Laboratory Results Appendix E: Asbestos Regulatory Factors Appendix F: Project Limitations Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill TOC - 1 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 31, 2012, IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the Maintenance- Warehouse facility of the White Mesa Mill, Denison Mines, located in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance and Permitting for Denison Mines, requested this inspection to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that exist in the building. ACM – IHI identified the following materials: • Vinyl floor tile and mastic (2,140 square feet) • Floor tile mastic (420 square feet) Conclusions Asbestos – IHI recommends that a Utah-certified asbestos abatement contractor remove and properly dispose of all the ACM in this building that may be disturbed during remodel or demolition. Cost Estimates IHI’s cost estimates for a Utah-certified asbestos abatement contractor to remove the ACMs outlined above are approximately $8,600. The estimated cost does not include travel expenses for an abatement contractor. These estimates do not include the costs for asbestos abatement design and management consulting services. The report that follows this Executive Summary should be read in its entirety because it includes important information, such as material descriptions and locations, regulatory requirements, and building-specific recommended response actions. Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill i IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Executive Summary Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content Amount Cost Estimate(1) M004 12-15% >1-8% 2,140 sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic106A, 107C, 107D-Offices and 200-Lunch Room Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement - 12" x 12" Tan vinyl floor tile and black mastic $7,190 M004A 8%420 sq. ft.Chrysotile 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM Coverings - Black tar mastic $1,411 Cost Estimates include asbestos removal costs only; abatement design, management fees and replacement costs are not included. Please refer to Section 6.0 for more details. Note 1: Executive Summary Table Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Page 1 of 1 ASBESTOS INSPECTION Maintenance-Warehouse White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp 6425 South Highway 191 Blanding, Utah 84511 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 31, 2012, IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the Maintenance- Warehouse located at 6425 South Highway 191 in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, of Denison Mines, requested this inspection to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that exist in the facility. 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION • Building Identification Building Name .............................Maintenance-Warehouse (Shop) Building Address ........................6425 South Highway 191, Blanding, Utah 84511 • Building Construction Building Construction Date .........1978 Renovations..................................Not known Building Type .............................Shop, warehouse, lockers, offices, and lunch room Building Total Sq. Ft....................19,800 square feet Structural System ........................Concrete foundation with sheet metal Exterior Wall Construction .........Sheet metal Floor Deck Construction .............Concrete Roof Deck Construction .............Metal Roof Construction .......................Metal • Floors Floors Above Grade .................... Two (Lunch room) Floors Below Grade .................... None • Interior Finishes Floors ...........................................Vinyl floor tile, ceramic tile and concrete Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill 1 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Walls ............................................ Wall system and metal Ceilings ........................................ Metal Attic ............................................. None Basement ..................................... None • Building Mechanical Heating Plant ............................... Not known Main Heating Distribution: .......... Forced air Cooling Plant ............................... Not known Main A/C Distribution ................. Forced air 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) IHI visually inspected all accessible areas of the building to identify suspect ACM. To assess the condition and determine friability of the suspect materials, IHI visually examined and touched all accessible surfaces, structures, and mechanical systems within the building. Suspect ACM was identified and assessed by homogeneous areas. A homogeneous area is defined as a single material, uniform in texture and appearance, installed at one time, and unlikely to consist of more than one type, or formulation, of material. In cases where joint compound and/or tape has been applied to wallboard (gypsum board) and cannot be visually distinguished from the wallboard, it is considered an integral part of the wallboard and in effect becomes one material forming a wall or ceiling “system." Each homogeneous area was given a unique material identification (ID) number. Each ID number begins with a letter: "S" for surfacing materials, "T" for thermal system insulation, or "M" for miscellaneous materials. This letter is followed by a three-digit number, assigned in consecutive order. This number is used to identify that specific homogeneous area throughout the inspection report. Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill 2 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill 3 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 3.2 Bulk Sampling To determine the asbestos content of materials, IHI collected bulk samples from all accessible homogeneous areas of suspect ACM and submitted the samples to an accredited laboratory for analysis. The number of samples collected from each homogeneous area generally followed the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations (40 CFR §763.86). Friable surfacing materials were sampled using the random sampling scheme given in the EPA publication 560/5-85-030a, titled "Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials." Bulk sample IDs collected during the inspection were entered on chain-of-custody forms for submittal to the analytical laboratory. 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis Bulk samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) and visual estimation according to the EPA Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples, EPA-600/M4-82-020. Samples were analyzed by Dixon Information Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah. Dixon Information is accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST-NVLAP) for bulk asbestos sample analysis, and is also accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and AHERA regulations define ACM as material containing greater than 1% asbestos by weight; materials containing 1% or less asbestos are not considered regulated ACM by the EPA. Further, the NESHAP regulations state that any sample found to contain less than 10% asbestos but greater than “none detected," by the visual estimation method used during PLM analysis, must be assumed to contain greater than 1% asbestos unless confirmed by NESHAP point counting analysis.1 Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health 1 NESHAP point counting includes examining materials under a polarizing microscope using an eyepiece reticule that superimposes a grid of points over the field of view. 400 points are examined. Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill 4 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.2 The laboratory reports can be found in Appendix D of this report. 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials The Executive Summary and Table 1 in Appendix A list all homogeneous areas that contain asbestos. Each material is described by type of material, friability and visual appearance. Friability is defined in accordance with EPA’s NESHAP regulations. • “Friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure and also includes non-friable ACM that may become friable during building demolition. • “Non-friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. • “Category I non-friable ACM” are asbestos-containing resilient floor coverings (commonly known as vinyl asbestos tile (VAT)), asphalt roofing products, packings, and gaskets. • “Category II non-friable ACM” encompasses all other non-friable ACM. • “Non-friable RACM” is used to denote thermal system insulation that is in good condition but would become friable during renovation or demolition and therefore is "regulated asbestos containing material" (RACM). 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials Homogeneous areas of suspect ACM are identified as non-ACM if material contains no detectable asbestos. Table 2, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all homogeneous areas that were found to be non-ACM. 2 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results Table 3, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all the bulk samples (chronologically by sample number) collected from homogeneous areas of suspect ACM, and the laboratory analytical results. Each sample was given a unique sample number. There may be more than one sample number for the same homogeneous area of suspect ACM indicating multiple samples were collected from that homogeneous material. The homogeneous areas of suspect ACM are identified on this table by their material identification numbers. The sample location listed on this table provides a brief, but specific, description of the location where the sample was collected. This is different from the homogeneous area location provided on Tables 1 and 2. Table 4 is the same as Table 3, except that the entries have been sorted by homogeneous area number. 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment Each homogeneous area of ACM was assessed for existing damage, accessibility, and potential for future damage, this information is presented in Table 5, located in Appendix A of this report. This table also lists the substrate beneath each homogeneous area of ACM. Damage and hazard assessment categories are included in the tables in Appendix A. 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations None 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials None 4.7 Inaccessible Areas Suspect materials that were hidden or inaccessible may not have been characterized by this inspection. Therefore, any material not identified in this report as having been tested should be treated as suspect ACM until it has been sampled by a Utah-certified inspector and analyzed by an accredited laboratory applying EPA methods. In addition, some building structures may have been constructed after the application of ACM, and therefore may have obscured these materials from visual examination during this inspection. Typical scenarios include thermal system insulation inside hardened mechanical Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill 5 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill 6 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 chases, floor tile and mastic under walls, and sprayed-on texturing and fireproofing behind structural supports or architectural features. 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) None 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations In Utah, EPA asbestos regulations are administered by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ).3 The Utah Occupational Safety and Health Administration (UOSH) has adopted the Federal OSHA regulations.4 In addition, the Salt Lake Valley Health Department (SLVHD) regulates demolition activities in Salt Lake County.5 The SLVHD regulations for pre- demolition building inspections require an asbestos inspection, but also require building owners to inspect the building for other hazardous materials such as universal wastes, hazardous and toxic wastes, and lead-based paint. Like asbestos, these wastes, if present, must be removed prior to building demolition. Regulatory factors relevant to asbestos abatement decision-making are included in Appendix E. 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) A listing of ACM found during this inspection is presented in the Executive Summary at the front of this report, and in Appendix A, Table 1. NESHAP regulations require the removal of friable ACM and non-friable ACM that could become friable during demolition or renovation activities. Therefore, we recommend that all of the ACM in this building be removed and properly disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor if total demolition of the facility is planned, or those materials that will be impacted by renovation plans be removed prior to the commencement of renovation work. Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials 3 R307-801. Asbestos, Utah Division of Air Quality Rules, Implementation of Toxic Substances Control Act Title II, Asbestos Certification, Asbestos Training, notifications and Asbestos Work Practices for Renovations and Demolitions (See www.airquality.utah.gov). 4 Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite Standards, Chapter D (Construction), Section 58; and Chapter Z (General Industry), Section 1001, Utah Occupational Safety and Health Rules and Regulations (Administered by Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division) (See www.uosh.utah.gov). 5 Salt Lake City – County Health Department, Health Regulation #1 Section 12 (See www.slvhealth.org). Maintenance-Warehouse-White Mesa Mill 7 IHI Environmental Denison Mines Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.6 Strict compliance by building owners with the OSHA asbestos regulations may result in response actions not required by the EPA and Utah DAQ for certain unregulated materials. 6.0 COST ESTIMATES Details of the estimated removal costs by homogeneous area can be found in Table 6, Appendix A, and in the Executive Summary table. These estimates are provided for budgeting and planning only, and do not have a level of accuracy sufficient to be used as a construction design cost estimate. The actual cost of asbestos removal is dependent on factors such as the size of the job, the required time frame for removal, the time of year the job is conducted, and economic factors. These estimates do not include replacement costs, or the cost for asbestos abatement design and management consulting services. 6 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) Appendix A Data Tables Table 1 Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content AmountFriability M004 12" x 12" Tan vinyl floor tile and black mastic 106A, 107C, 107D-Offices and 200-Lunch Room 12-15% >1-8% 2,140Category 1 Non-friable Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement sq. ft.Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic M004A Black tar mastic 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room 8%420Category 1 Non-friable The asbestos floor mastic is under non-asbestos floor tile and yellow adhesive. Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM sq. ft.Chrysotile Asbestos Survey Report - Table 1 Warehouse-Maintenance BuildingPage 1 of 1 White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Note: A homogeneous area of suspect material is considered an Asbestos-containing Material (ACM) if any one sample contains greater than 1% asbestos Table 2 Homogeneous Areas That Do Not Contain Asbestos White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Material DescriptionHomogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Amount M001 White joint compound, paper tape and gypsum plaster 100-Corridor, 101 and 102-Men's Lockers, 103-Women's Lockers and 200-Lunch Room 3,200 sq. ft.Wall System M002 Gray sheet vinyl flooring 100-Corridor, 101, 102, 103-Lockers and 105- Laundry 1,170 sq. ft.Vinyl Floor Sheeting M003 12" x 12" Pink vinyl floor tile 103-Women's Lockers 15 sq. ft.Floor Tile - Exposed M005 12" x 12" Gray Vfinyl floor tile and yellow adhesive 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room 420 sq. ft. There is asbestos black floor mastic underneath. Floor Tile - Exposed M006 Tan mastic 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room 90 ln. ft.Cove Base Adhesive M007 Brown mastic 106A, 107C and 107D-Offices 145 ln. ft.Cove Base Adhesive M008 Off-white mastic 100-Corridor, 101, 102, 103-Lockers, and 105-Laundry 240 ln. ft.Cove Base Adhesive Asbestos Survey Report - Table 2 Page 1 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Material DescriptionHomogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Amount M009 Gray sealant On ducts in 106-Warehouse and 107- Maintenance 30 ln. ft.Duct Sealant M010 White sink undercoat 107-Maintenance 1 unitSink Undercoat S001 White textured-plaster wall 100-Corridor, 101 and 102-Men's Lockers, 103-Women's Lockers and 200-Lunch Room 3,200 sq. ft.Surfacing Material Asbestos Survey Report - Table 2 Page 2 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Sample Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-01 S001 100-Corridor NDSurfacing Material A1081S-02 S001 102-Men's Locker Room NDSurfacing Material A1081S-03 S001 103A-Women's Restroom NDSurfacing Material A1081S-04 M001 101-Men's Lockers NDWall System A1081S-05 M001 200-Lunch Room NDWall System A1081S-06 M001 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDWall System A1081S-07 M002 102-Men's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-08 M002 100-Corridor NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-09 M002 103-Women's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-10 M003 103-Women's Locker Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-11 M004 200-Lunch Room 12%Chrysotile: tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-12 M004 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 15% >1% Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-13 M004A 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 8%ChrysotileFloor Tile Mastic A1081S-14 M005 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-15 M006 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDCove Base Adhesive Asbestos Survey Report - Table 3 Page 1 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-16 M007 1107C-Electrical Foreman's Office NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-17 M008 102-Men's Locker Room NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-18 M009 106-Warehouse NDDuct Sealant A1081S-19 M010 107-Maintenance NDSink Undercoat Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 3 Page 2 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 4 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Homogeneous Area Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-04 M001 101-Men's Lockers NDWall System A1081S-05 M001 200-Lunch Room NDWall System A1081S-06 M001 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDWall System A1081S-07 M002 102-Men's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-08 M002 100-Corridor NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-09 M002 103-Women's Locker Room NDVinyl Floor Sheeting A1081S-10 M003 103-Women's Locker Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-11 M004 200-Lunch Room 12%Chrysotile: tileFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-12 M004 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 15% >1% Chrysotile: tile Chrysotile: mastic Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement A1081S-13 M004A 107D-Foreman's Maintenance Office 8%ChrysotileFloor Tile Mastic A1081S-14 M005 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDFloor Tile - Exposed A1081S-15 M006 107A-Instrument Shop/Tool Room NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-16 M007 1107C-Electrical Foreman's Office NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-17 M008 102-Men's Locker Room NDCove Base Adhesive A1081S-18 M009 106-Warehouse NDDuct Sealant A1081S-19 M010 107-Maintenance NDSink Undercoat A1081S-01 S001 100-Corridor NDSurfacing Material A1081S-02 S001 102-Men's Locker Room NDSurfacing Material Asbestos Survey Report - Table 4 Page 1 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081S-03 S001 103A-Women's Restroom NDSurfacing Material Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 4 Page 2 of 2 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 5 Damage and Hazard Assessment by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number DamageSubstrate AccessibilityMaterial Type Assessment Category Disturbance Potential M004 X No Damage Rarely AccessedCement LowFloor Tile and Mastic on Cement M004A X No Damage Rarely AccessedCement LowFloor Tile Mastic Under Non-ACM Coverings Damage Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was classified into one of the following seven categories, as specified in EPA’s AHERA regulations (40 CFR §763.88): (1) Damaged or significantly damaged thermal system insulation ACM. (2) Damaged friable surfacing ACM. (3) Significantly damaged friable surfacing ACM. (4) Damaged or significantly damaged friable miscellaneous ACM. (5) ACBM with potential for damage. (6) ACBM with potential for significant damage. (7) Any remaining friable ACBM or friable suspected ACBM. (X) Not applicable (material is non-friable surfacing or miscellaneous material). The damage categories are defined as follows: “Undamaged” means the material had no visible damage, or extremely minor damage or surface marring (i.e., a room full of floor tile with only two or three small corners chipped off of the tile). “Slight Damage” means the material had visible damage evenly distributed over less than 10% of its surface, or localized over less than 25% of its surface. “Significantly Damaged” means the material had visible damage that is evenly distributed over 10% or more of its surface or localized over 25% or more of its surface. Hazard Assessment Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was evaluated for accessibility and the hazard the material presents to building occupants and the general public. The assessment assumes a fully occupied building. “Inaccessible” means the material was located in an area that people had no reason to enter and could not access without special measures. One example would be above a solid ceiling. “Rarely-Accessed” identifies a material that was in a location that could be accessed but wasn't unless there was a specific needed. An example would be a pipe tunnel. Another example would be a high ceiling that is out of reach and not subject to any specific disturbances. “Periodic Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was accessible, was not occupied full time, but was accessed on a routine basis. An example would be a mechanical room or boiler room. “Continuous Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was occupied full time and was within reach of the occupants, or was frequently subject to direct disturbance. Examples would be exposed floor tile or a normal height ceiling. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 5 Page 1 of 1 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 6 Estimated Abatement Costs by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Warehouse-Maintenance Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Extended CostAmountUnit Cost M004 Floor Tile and Mastic on Cement 2,140 sq. ft.$3.36 $7,190 M004A Floor Tile Mastic Under Non-AC 420 sq. ft.$3.36 $1,411 Total Estimated Abatement Cost $8,602 Note: Estimated abatement costs do not include replacement costs or costs for a consultant to manage the abatement. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 6 Page 1 of 1 Warehouse-Maintenance Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Appendix B Building Floor Plans Men's Locker Room 102 Men's Restroom 102A Shower 102B Storage 102B 100 Closet 100A Men's Locker Room 101 Laundry 105 Women's Locker Room 103 Women's Restroom 103A Warehouse 106 107A 106B 107B 106A 107C 107D Maintenance 107 Electrical 108 Carpenter 110 109 111A Rubbering 111 2 18 717 1 8 4 10 3 9 20 6 15 14 19 16 12 13 Lunch Room 200 Storage 200B Storage 200A 11 5 Second Floor Sample Location & Number10 Room Name & Number Explanation 101 Asbestos-containing Floor Tile & Mastic Asbestos-containing Floor Mastic PROJECT No: SHEET: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: De n i s o n M i n e s C o r p . Wh i t e M e s a M i l l 64 2 5 S o u t h H i g h w a y 1 9 1 Bl a n d i n g , U T As b e s t o s & H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S a m p l e L o c a t i o n M a p DATE: DATE: DATE: REVISED BY: 640 E. Wilmington Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84106801.466.2223 ihi@ihi-env.com 0 10'20' 12U-A1081 1 of 1 Keith 07-11-2012 V:\ - 1 2 P r o j e c t s \ 1 2 U - A 1 0 8 1 D e n i s o n M i l l S i t e A s b e s t o s I n s p & M P \ D r a w i n g s \ 1 2 U A 1 0 8 1 . d w g , w a r e h o u s e , 7 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 2 1 1 : 2 0 : 3 1 A M , k e i t h f , A N S I f u l l b l e e d B ( 1 7 . 0 0 x 1 1 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) Appendix C Photographs Photograph 1 The surfacing material and the wall system did not contain asbestos. Photograph 2 This gray vinyl sheet flooring did not contain asbestos. Photograph 3 The vinyl floor tile and black mastic contained >1- 15% chrysotile asbestos. Photograph 4 The cove base adhesive used in the building did not contain asbestos. Photograph 5 The gray duct sealant was reported as none detected for asbestos. Photograph 6 This sink undercoat in the maintenance area did not contain asbestos. Appendix D Laboratory Results ,.......----- -DIXON INFORMATION INC.--------, MICROSCOPY,ASBESTOS ANALYSIS &CONSULTING A.I.H.A.ACCREDITED LABORATORY #101579 NVLAP LAB CODE 101012-0 June 6,2012 Mr. Lono Folau IHl Environ mental 640 East Wilmington Ave Salt Lake City.UT 84106 Ref: Batch #104900,Lab #H19724 -H19743 Received June 6,2012 Test report.Page I of 5 Denison Mines White Mesa Mill Shop 6425 S.Highway 191,Blanding,Utah Sampled by Lono Folau, 5/30/20 12 Dear 1"1r.Folau: Samples H19724 through 11 19743 have been analyzed by visual estimation based on EPA- 600 /M4-82-020 December 1982 optical microscopy test method ,with guidance from the EPA/600/R-93/l 16 July 1993and OSHA ID 19 1methods.Appendix "A"containsstatements which an accredited laboratory must make to meet the requirements of accrediting agencies.It also contains additional information aboutthe method ofanalysis.Thisanalysis is accredited by NVLAP. Appe ndix "A"must be included as an essential part ofthis test report.The data for this report is accredited by NVLAP for laboratory number 101012-0.It does not con tain data or calibrations for tests performed under the AIHA program under lab code 101579. This report may be reproduced but all reproduction must be in full unless written approva l is received from the laboratory for partial reproduction.TIle results ofanalysis are as follows: Lab H 19724.Field A I081S-I Sur facing Material This sample contains three types ofmaterial: The first type is white paint layers:the second type is yellow mastic:the third type is off-white gypsum plaster with mica.This sample is non- homogeneous.Asbestos is none de tected. .The first type is 49%ofthe sample.The second type is 1%ofthe sample.The third type is 50%of t'he sample. '--+---- -78 WEST 2400 SOUTH ·SOUTH SALT LAKE ,UTAH 84115 -3013 PHONE 801-486-0800 · FAX 801-486-0849 ·RES.801-571-7695 Batch =104900 Lab =H19724 -HI 9743 Page:'of 5 Lab HI 9715.Field '\IOS1S-")Surfacing Material Thi s sample contains three type s ofmat eria l:The first type is white paint layers:the second type is off-white limestone plaster with mica: the third type is brown plant fiber paper. This sample is non- hom ogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 40%of the sample.Th e second type is 59%of the samp le.The third type is I%of the sample. Lab H197")6 .Field A I081S-3 Surfacing Material This sample contains three types of material:The first type is white paint:the second type is off- white lime stone plaster:the third type is off-wh ite plant tiber paper.This sample is non- hom ogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 5% of the sample. The second type is 92%of the sample .The third type is 3%of the sample. Lab H19727.f ield A1081S-4 Wall System This sample contains four types of material: Th e first type is off-white gyps um plaster with mica: the second type is 5%cross woven fiberglass in off-white limestone plaster with mica:the third type is off-white and brown plant fiber paper layers:the fourth type is 1%plant tiber in wh ite gypsum plaster.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 5%of the sample.The second type is 5%of the sample.The third type is 5%of the sample.The fourt h type is 85%ofthe sample. Lab H197! 8.Field '\108 I S-5 \\'all System This sa mple contains off-white paint.white limestone plaster with .bro wn and off-wh ite plant tibe r paper.and white gypsum plaster with 1%plant fiber.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The paint is I%of the sample.The plaster with limestone is 9% of the sample"The pla nt tiber paper is 5%ofthe sample.The white gypsum plaster is 85%of the sample. Lab HI97!9.Field A I081S-6 Wall System Thi s sample contains wh ite paint.white gypsum plaster with mica .brown and off-white plant fiber paper.and wh ite gypsum plaster wit h 1%plan t fiber. Th is sample is non-homogeneou s"Asbestos is no ne detected. The paint is 1% of the sample.The plaste r with mica is 9% of the sample.The plant fiber paper is 5%of the sample.The white gypsum plaster is 85%ofthe sample. Batch "104900 Lab #1-/1 9724 -H 19743 Page 3 of 5 Lab 1-/1 9730.Field A 1OS 1S-7 Vinvl Floor Sheeting This sample contains two types ofmaterial:The first type is gray plastic :the second type is 35% plant fiber.5%fiber glass and 5%synthetic fiber in gray bindcr. This sample is non-homogeneous. Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 60%of the sample.The seco nd type is 40%ofthc sample. ~ab 11 19731. Field Al 081S-8 Vinyl Floo r Sheeting Th is sample contains two type s ofmaterial:The first type is off-white paint:the second type is gray rubber and limestone.Thi s sample is non-homogene ous. Asbestos is none d etected. Th e first type is 1%of the sample.The second type is 99%ofthe sample. Lab H19737 .Field A l 081S-9 Vinyl Floor Sheeting This sample contains two types of material:The first type is white paint:the seco nd type is gray rubber and limestone.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected . The first type is I%of the sample. The second type is 99% of the sample. Lab 1-1 19733.Field A I081S-10 Floor Tile This is pink plastic and limestone tile with debris on the surface. Asbestos is no ne detected. Lab H19 7'4.Field AI08 1S-l l Floor Tile Thissample contains three types ofmaterial:The first type is 12%ebrysotile asbestos in tan plastic and limestone tile:the second type is black tar mast ic:the third type is gray sandy plaster.Th is sample is non-homogeneous. The first type is 98%of thc sample. The second type is 1%ofthc sample.The third type is 1%of the sample. Lab 111 9735. Field A1081S-Il Floor Tile This is 15%chrysotile asbestos in a tan plastic and limestone tile. Note: The black tar mastic contains greater than 1%ch rysotile asbestos. The tile is 99%ofthe sample.The black tar mast ic is 1%of thc sample. Lab 1-/19736.Field A1081S-13 Floor Tile Mastic This is 8%ch rys otile asb estos in black tar mas tic. Batch"104900 Lab #HI9724 -HI 9743 Page 4 of5 Lab II 1973 7.Field .';'1 OS 1S-14 Floor Tile This is a gray plastic and limestone tile with yellow resin mastic . Asbestos is none d etected. The tile is 99%of the sample. Th e mastic is 1%of the sample. Lab 11 IQ/38 .Field AI08 1S-15 Cove Base Adhesive (Tan) This sample contains three types of material:The first type is tan mastic with limestone:the second type is white paint:the third type is white limestone plaster with mica.This sample is non- homogeneous.As bestos is none detected. The first type is 94%of the sample. The second type is 1%of the sam ple.The third type is 5%of the sample. Lab 11 19739.Field A I081S-16 CO\'e Base Adhesive (Brown) This sample contains two types of material:The first type is brown resin mastic:the second type is white limestone plaster with mica.This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected . The first type is 80%of the sample. The second type is 20% of the sample. Lab 11 19740 .Field A 108IS-17 Cove Base Adhesive This sample contains two types of material:The first type is tan mastic with limestone:the second type is brown plant fiber paper. This sample is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 99%of the sample.The second type is 1%of the sample. Lab H I974 1.Field A I081S-I8 Duct Sealant This is gray sealant with limestone.Asbestos is no ne detected. Lab HI 974".Field A1081S-19 Sink lindercoat This is 5%organic fiber in white binder with limestone and mica.Asbes tos is none detected. Batch s 104900 Lab s HI 9724 -H19743 Page 5 of 5 Lab H19743.Field AI081S-10 Surfacing Material This sample contains three types of material: The first type is off-white paint:the second type is off- white limestone plaster with mica:the third type isoff-white gypsum plaster with mica.This sampl e is non-homogeneous.Asbestos is none detected. The first type is 10%ofthe sample.The second type is 45% of the sample.The third type is 45% of the sample. In order to be sure reagents and tools used for analysis are not con taminated with asbestos. blanks are tested.Asbestos was none detected in the blanks tested with this bulk sample set. Very truly yours, ~.IJC Steve H.O<on,President ~" Dixon Information Inc. 78 West 2400 South South Salt Lake,Utah 84115 Phone:1-801-486-0800 Fax:1-801-486-0849 BULK ANALYTICAL REQUEST FORM Turnaround Time -Circle One Batch Number IDlJ gOO Rush (24 hours $25.00 per sample) Non-rush (5 Working days $17.00 per sample) /)el1;s.1?M/"es -p/,;,J-e M~.s....M ill. Name oflocation sample was taken at::-:--=s:""h!..!o<-;e=--c--c-__-,-::-:----::-c-_-;-__---:::--_ Street address sample was taken at 6¥25"S:g,~hw"'tl/t)1 13/""",eI'nq ur Sampled by:.I.0!?a h /<:lLL..'oJ Description of Sample Report to be sent to:L .,",0 Fa1",«- Company:117'1 r"l1/ronmcnfaf Address:c.ro.l!.N //m ln"-tk,,,we City:$1,c.State:c/U T Zip Code:¥'/IlJ ~ Telephone #:caDI)%6 -Z2Z3 Fax #:("01)i"·,"/~ E-mail:Il"o/~&iltl -e......CoM. Lab # 12 V-A./oal _ Samples Collected Date Time Billingto be sent to:----:-_ Company:I HI L'n"''ronn7~'lot.../ Address:-----:::-_ City:State:_ Zip Code:,-c-_ Telephone #:_ Fax #:_-;-::-:-;----:-:-::-::-:-_ PO #:_-'--_-'------"'-'_ Floot"tile f:{ool a le. Field # A l oalS- II f'Z. !3 Flo",..tde. ~V~bose:dlu:s.'ve..,(ra., ) Col''''-"'oS'"..d hes/....t!:.-('-raul,.,) /1 S'nfc .H7det"c.o~-{- S'~y.f4.Co,;>!!,.,.,,,,,--f~;&d- Chain ofCustody Submission of asbestos samples for analysis and/or signing a chain of custody is the equivalent of submission of a purchase order and constitutes an agreement to pay for services provided at Dixon Informat~Inc::g'0rated standard schedule offees for services, Submitted by:~-'.::Date:'I'-11 ~Time:_ Received b~':Q;;:;:;;;;Date:U ;;Time:\~'l..() Received by Analyst:~-Date:t:.f 2 -/L Time:/bdJ Returned by Lab:Date:Time: _ Appendix"A" "This report relates only to the items tested. Thi s repo rt must not be used to claim prod uct endorsement by NVLAP or A IHA ." NV LA P and A IHA requires laboratories to state the conditio n of samples received for testing: Th ese samples are in acceptable co ndition for analysis unless there is a statement in the report of analysis that a test item has some character istics or condition that precludes analysis or req uires a modification of standard analytica l methodology.II'a test item is not acceptable,the reasons for non-acce ptability will be give n under the lab oratory num ber for that particular test itcm.The reported percentages of each material type are based on the sample recei ved by the laboratory and may not be representative of the parent material.Or ientation of top and bottom may not be specified due to uncertainty of orientation. M ethods of Ana lysis and Limit of Detection in a ir count analysis.the results may be biased when interferences arc noted. The accuracy of asbestos analysis in bulk samples increases with increasing concentration of asbestos.Pigment s.binders. small sample size.and multiple layers may affect the analysis sensitivity. There are two methods for ana lysis of as bestos in a bulk test sample. Visual esti mation is the most sensitive method.If an analyst makes a patient sea rch. 0.1%or less asbestos can be detected in a bulk sample. The second method of analysis is a statistical approac h ca lled po int counting.EPA will not acc ept visual estimations if a laboratory detects a trace of asbestos in a sample i.e.anything less than I%asbesto s.Government age ncies regulate asbestos containing materials (AC M) whenever the ACM is more than I%.OS HA require men ts apply on samples co ntaining any amount of asbestos. Due to the higher charge for a point count analysis,Dixon Information Inc.does not perform a point count unless authorized to do so by the client.If a sample is po int counted,when possible,various chemica l and/or physical means may be used to concentrate the asbestos in the sample.This is permitted by the EPA method and it increases the accuracy of the analysis. Appendix E Regulatory Factors Several factors determine how asbestos in a building must be treated if it has the potential of being disturbed during a renovation or demolition. These factors include the following: Factor EPA Regulations for Asbestos Removal OSHA Regulations for Asbestos Removal Definition of asbestos in a building material Defines ACM as a material containing 1% or greater asbestos. Defines an ACM as one containing >1% asbestos. Regulation of asbestos in building materials Regulates only ACM. If the asbestos concentration in a material is shown to be “none detected” by initial analysis or 1% or less by point count analysis, EPA/DAQ does not regulate it. Regulates not only ACM but all materials containing any amount of asbestos. Regulations are not as stringent for materials containing equal-to or less-than 1% asbestos but greater than a “none detected” concentration. Determination of asbestos concentration in a gypsum board wall system Allows compositing of all layers (joint compound, joint tape, and gypsum board) into one sample, which decreases the possibility that the sample will be evaluated as an ACM. Requires that each layer of the wall system be analyzed and reported independently, which increases the possibility of a sample containing ACM or identifiable asbestos. Defines regulated and non-regulated ACM Yes – Regulated ACM include friable ACM and resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, gaskets and packing that have become friable and other ACM that have a high probability of becoming friable. No – Requirements for asbestos work procedures and worker training are less stringent for resilient flooring, asphalt roofing materials, and materials containing greater than “none detected” but not greater than 1% asbestos. Notification of asbestos abatement or building demolition required Yes – Utah DAQ must be notified on the appropriate form 10 working-days prior to an asbestos abatement of regulated asbestos material greater than the NESHAP-established notifiable quantity with demolition, or demolition where abatement is not required. No – Not required. Provision for allowing ACM to remain in a building during a demolition. Yes – Allows ACM resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, and certain other non- friable building materials in good condition to remain in a building during demolition as long as the demolition process will not render them friable. No – If any asbestos is left in a building during a demolition, the demolition workers are expected to meet the same OSHA requirements that an abatement contractor would meet if an abatement contractor was conducting an abatement of those materials. Appendix F Project Limitations PROJECT LIMITATIONS This Project was performed using, as a minimum, practices consistent with standards acceptable within the industry at this time, and a level of diligence typically exercised by EH&S consultants performing similar services. The procedures used attempt to establish a balance between the competing goals of limiting investigative and reporting costs and time, and reducing the uncertainty about unknown conditions. Therefore, because the findings of this report were derived from the scope, costs, time and other limitations, the conclusions should not be construed as a guarantee that all universal, toxic and/or hazardous wastes have been identified and fully evaluated. Furthermore, IHI assumes no responsibility for omissions or errors resulting from inaccurate information, or data, provided by sources outside of IHI or from omissions or errors in public records. It is emphasized that the final decision on how much risk to accept always remains with the client since IHI is not in a position to fully understand all of the client's needs. Clients with a greater aversion to risk may want to take additional actions while others, with less aversion to risk, may want to take no further action. ATTACHMENT A.4 SX BUILDING ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT IIHHII E NVIRONMENTAL ASBESTOS INSPECTION REPORT SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp 6425 South Highway 191 Blanding, Utah August 1, 2012 Prepared for: Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance & Permitting Denison Mines 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, Colorado 80265 Prepared by: Reviewed by: Lono Folau Asbestos Inspector #ASB-0537 Jon H. Self Asbestos Program Manager IHI Project 12U-A1081 640 EAST WILMINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 TELEPHONE: 801-466-2223 FAX: 801-466-9616 E-MAIL: IHI@IHI-ENV.COM SALT LAKE CITY SAN FRANCISCO PHOENIX DENVER SEATTLE TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. I 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................1 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES ............................................................................................2 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) ...............................................................2 3.2 Bulk Sampling ...................................................................................................2 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis ........................................................................................3 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS ....................................................................................................4 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................................4 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials ..................................................................4 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results ........................................................................4 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment .......................................................................5 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations ......................................................5 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials ..........................................................5 4.7 Inaccessible Areas ..............................................................................................5 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) .........................5 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS ......................................................................................................6 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations .....................................................................6 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) .................................................6 6.0 COST ESTIMATES ..........................................................................................................7 APPENDICES Appendix A: Data Tables Appendix B: Building Floor Plans Appendix C: Photographs Appendix D: Laboratory Results Appendix E: Asbestos Regulatory Factors Appendix F: Project Limitations Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill TOC - 1 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On May 31, 2012, IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the SX Building at the Denison Mines White Mesa Mill site, in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, Corporate Director of Compliance and Permitting for Denison Mines, requested this inspection to identify the asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that exist in the building. ACM – IHI identified the following materials: • Pipe fitting sealant (20 units) Conclusions Asbestos – IHI recommends that a Utah-certified asbestos abatement contractor remove and properly dispose of all the ACM in this building that may be disturbed during remodel or demolition activities. Cost Estimates IHI’s cost estimates for a Utah-certified asbestos abatement contractor to remove the ACMs outlined above are approximately $230. The estimated cost does not include travel expenses for an abatement contractor. These estimates do not include the costs for asbestos abatement design and management consulting services. The report that follows this Executive Summary should be read in its entirety because it includes important information, such as material descriptions and locations, regulatory requirements, and building-specific recommended response actions. Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill i IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Executive Summary Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp SX Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content Amount Cost Estimate(1) M001 3%20 unitsChrysotile Mostly used on the TSI on the south corner of building Pipe Coating - White sealant on pipe ends of fibrousglass insulation $228 Cost Estimates include asbestos removal costs only; abatement design, management fees and replacement costs are not included. Please refer to Section 6.0 for more details. Note 1: Executive Summary Table SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Page 1 of 1 ASBESTOS INSPECTION SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp 6425 South Highway 191 Blanding, Utah 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 31, 2012, IHI Environmental conducted an asbestos inspection of the SX Building located at 6425 South Highway 191 in Blanding, Utah. Ms. Jo Ann Tischler, of Denison Mines Corporation, requested this inspection to identify asbestos-containing materials (ACM) that exist in the facility. 2.0 BUILDING DESCRIPTION • Building Identification Building Name .............................SX Building Building Address ........................6425 South Highway 191, Blanding, Utah 84511 • Building Construction Building Construction Date .........1978 Renovations..................................Not known Building Type .............................Plant Building Total Sq. Ft....................50,850 square feet Structural System ........................Concrete foundation with steel Exterior Wall Construction .........Metal Floor Deck Construction .............Concrete Roof Deck Construction .............Metal Roof Construction .......................Metal • Floors Floors Above Grade .................... One Floors Below Grade .................... None • Interior Finishes Floors ...........................................Concrete Walls ............................................ Metal Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill 1 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Ceilings ........................................ None (metal roof) Attic ............................................. None Basement ..................................... None • Building Mechanical Heating Plant ............................... Not known Cooling Plant ............................... Not known 3.0 INSPECTION PROCEDURES 3.1 Asbestos-Containing Material (ACM) IHI visually inspected all accessible areas of the building to identify suspect ACM. To assess the condition and determine friability of the suspect materials, IHI visually examined and touched all accessible surfaces, structures, and mechanical systems within the building. Suspect ACM was identified and assessed by homogeneous areas. A homogeneous area is defined as a single material, uniform in texture and appearance, installed at one time, and unlikely to consist of more than one type, or formulation, of material. In cases where joint compound and/or tape has been applied to wallboard (gypsum board) and cannot be visually distinguished from the wallboard, it is considered an integral part of the wallboard and in effect becomes one material forming a wall or ceiling “system." Each homogeneous area was given a unique material identification (ID) number. Each ID number begins with a letter: "S" for surfacing materials, "T" for thermal system insulation, or "M" for miscellaneous materials. This letter is followed by a three-digit number, assigned in consecutive order. This number is used to identify that specific homogeneous area throughout the inspection report. 3.2 Bulk Sampling To determine the asbestos content of materials, IHI collected bulk samples from all accessible homogeneous areas of suspect ACM and submitted the samples to an accredited laboratory for analysis. The number of samples collected from each homogeneous area generally followed the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act (AHERA) regulations (40 CFR §763.86). Friable surfacing materials were sampled using the Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill 2 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill 3 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 random sampling scheme given in the EPA publication 560/5-85-030a, titled "Asbestos in Buildings: Simplified Sampling Scheme for Friable Surfacing Materials." Bulk sample IDs collected during the inspection were entered on chain-of-custody forms for submittal to the analytical laboratory. 3.3 Bulk Sample Analysis Bulk samples were analyzed using polarized light microscopy (PLM) and visual estimation according to the EPA Interim Method for the Determination of Asbestos in Bulk Insulation Samples, EPA-600/M4-82-020. Samples were analyzed by Dixon Information Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah. Dixon Information is accredited under the National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NIST-NVLAP) for bulk asbestos sample analysis, and is also accredited by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). EPA’s National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and AHERA regulations define ACM as material containing greater than 1% asbestos by weight; materials containing 1% or less asbestos are not considered regulated ACM by the EPA. Further, the NESHAP regulations state that any sample found to contain less than 10% asbestos but greater than “none detected," by the visual estimation method used during PLM analysis, must be assumed to contain greater than 1% asbestos unless confirmed by NESHAP point counting analysis.1 Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.2 The laboratory reports can be found in Appendix D of this report. 1 NESHAP point counting includes examining materials under a polarizing microscope using an eyepiece reticule that superimposes a grid of points over the field of view. 400 points are examined. 2 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) 4.0 INSPECTION RESULTS 4.1 Asbestos-Containing Materials The Executive Summary and Table 1 in Appendix A list all homogeneous areas that contain asbestos. Each material is described by type of material, friability and visual appearance. Friability is defined in accordance with EPA’s NESHAP regulations. • “Friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, may be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure and also includes non-friable ACM that may become friable during building demolition. • “Non-friable ACM” is any material containing more than 1% asbestos (as determined by PLM) that, when dry, cannot be crumbled, pulverized, or reduced to powder by hand pressure. • “Category I non-friable ACM” are asbestos-containing resilient floor coverings (commonly known as vinyl asbestos tile (VAT)), asphalt roofing products, packings, and gaskets. • “Category II non-friable ACM” encompasses all other non-friable ACM. • “Non-friable RACM” is used to denote thermal system insulation that is in good condition but would become friable during renovation or demolition and therefore is "regulated asbestos containing material" (RACM). 4.2 Non-Asbestos-Containing Materials Homogeneous areas of suspect ACM are identified as non-ACM if the material contains no detectable asbestos. Table 2, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all homogeneous areas that were found to be non-ACM. 4.3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results Table 3, located in Appendix A of this report, lists all the bulk samples (chronologically by sample number) collected from homogeneous areas of suspect ACM, and the laboratory analytical results. Each sample was given a unique sample number. There may be more than one sample number for the same homogeneous area of suspect ACM indicating multiple samples were collected from that homogeneous material. The homogeneous areas of suspect Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill 4 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 ACM are identified on this table by their material identification numbers. The sample location listed on this table provides a brief, but specific, description of the location where the sample was collected. This is different from the homogeneous area location provided on Tables 1 and 2. Table 4 is the same as Table 3, except that the entries have been sorted by homogeneous area number. 4.4 Damage and Hazard Assessment Each homogeneous area of ACM was assessed for existing damage, accessibility, and potential for future damage, this information is presented in Table 5, located in Appendix A of this report. This table also lists the substrate beneath each homogeneous area of ACM. Damage and hazard assessment categories are included in the tables in Appendix A. 4.5 Materials Requiring Special Considerations None 4.6 Assumed Asbestos-Containing Materials The asbestos pipe fitting sealant is white and applied on pipe fiberglass insulation ends and plastic pipe insulation connections. 4.7 Inaccessible Areas Suspect materials that were hidden or inaccessible may not have been characterized by this inspection. Therefore, any material not identified in this report as having been tested should be treated as suspect ACM until it has been sampled by a Utah-certified inspector and analyzed by an accredited laboratory applying EPA methods. In addition, some building structures may have been constructed after the application of ACM, and therefore may have obscured these materials from visual examination during this inspection. Typical scenarios include thermal system insulation inside hardened mechanical chases, floor tile and mastic under walls, and sprayed-on texturing and fireproofing behind structural supports or architectural features. 4.8 Materials Assumed >1% Asbestos (no NESHAP point count) None Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill 5 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill 6 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 5.0 RESPONSE ACTIONS 5.1 Applicable Rules and Regulations In Utah, EPA asbestos regulations are administered by the Utah Division of Air Quality (DAQ).3 The Utah Occupational Safety and Health Administration (UOSH) has adopted the Federal OSHA regulations.4 In addition, the Salt Lake Valley Health Department (SLVHD) regulates demolition activities in Salt Lake County.5 The SLVHD regulations for pre- demolition building inspections require an asbestos inspection, but also require building owners to inspect the building for other hazardous materials such as universal wastes, hazardous and toxic wastes, and lead-based paint. Like asbestos, these wastes, if present, must be removed prior to building demolition. Regulatory factors relevant to asbestos abatement decision-making are included in Appendix E. 5.2 Renovation and Demolition (EPA and OSHA) A listing of ACM found during this inspection is presented in the Executive Summary at the front of this report, and in Appendix A, Table 1. NESHAP regulations require the removal of friable ACM and non-friable ACM that could become friable during demolition or renovation activities. Therefore, we recommend that all of the ACM in this building be removed and properly disposed of by a licensed asbestos abatement contractor if total demolition of the facility is planned, or those materials that will be impacted by renovation plans be removed prior to the commencement of renovation work. Despite EPA (and Utah Division of Air Quality) rules exempting building materials containing 1% or less asbestos from stringent regulation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations outline specific precautionary work practices when employees work with materials containing even trace amounts of asbestos.6 Strict 3 R307-801. Asbestos, Utah Division of Air Quality Rules, Implementation of Toxic Substances Control Act Title II, Asbestos Certification, Asbestos Training, notifications and Asbestos Work Practices for Renovations and Demolitions (See www.airquality.utah.gov). 4 Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite Standards, Chapter D (Construction), Section 58; and Chapter Z (General Industry), Section 1001, Utah Occupational Safety and Health Rules and Regulations (Administered by Utah Occupational Safety and Health Division) (See www.uosh.utah.gov). 5 Salt Lake City – County Health Department, Health Regulation #1 Section 12 (See www.slvhealth.org). 6 OSHA regulations pertaining to asbestos in buildings include 29 CFR 1926.1101 and 29 CFR 1910.1001. OSHA has also issued interpretive letters that provide clarification about how materials containing less than 1% asbestos should be handled. (see www.osha.gov) Denison Mines/SX Building-White Mesa Mill 7 IHI Environmental Asbestos Inspection Project No. 12U-A1081 compliance by building owners with the OSHA asbestos regulations may result in response actions not required by the EPA and Utah DAQ for certain unregulated materials. 6.0 COST ESTIMATES Details of the estimated removal costs by homogeneous area can be found in Table 6, Appendix A, and in the Executive Summary table. These estimates are provided for budgeting and planning only, and do not have a level of accuracy sufficient to be used as a construction design cost estimate. The actual cost of asbestos removal is dependent on factors such as the size of the job, the required time frame for removal, the time of year the job is conducted, and economic factors. These estimates do not include replacement costs, or the cost for asbestos abatement design and management consulting services. Appendix A Data Tables Table 1 Asbestos-containing Materials by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp SX Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Asbestos Content AmountFriability M001 White sealant on pipe ends of fibrousglass insulation Mostly used on the TSI on the south corner of building 3%20Category 2 Non-friable Pipe Insulation Sealant unitsChrysotile Asbestos Survey Report - Table 1 SX BuildingPage 1 of 1 White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Note: A homogeneous area of suspect material is considered an Asbestos-containing Material (ACM) if any one sample contains greater than 1% asbestos Table 2 Homogeneous Areas That Do Not Contain Asbestos White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp SX Building Material DescriptionHomogeneous Area Number Material Description/Location Amount M002 Clear rubber silicone gasket On gaskets of tanks on center of building 15 unitsGasket M003 Tan rubber silicone gasket On gaskets of tanks on west of building 10 unitsGasket M004 White rubber silicone gasket On gaskets of tanks scattered throughout building 20 unitsGasket Asbestos Survey Report - Table 2 Page 1 of 1 SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 3 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Sample Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp SX Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081SX-1 M001 S. corner of building 3%ChrysotilePipe Insulation Sealant A1081SX-2 M001 SE. corner of building 3%ChrysotilePipe Insulation Sealant A1081SX-3 M001 N. corner of building 3%ChrysotilePipe Insulation Sealant A1081SX-4 M002 Center of building NDGasket A1081SX-5 M003 N. side of building NDGasket A1081SX-6 M004 W. side of building NDGasket Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 3 Page 1 of 1 SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 4 Bulk Sample Analytical Results by Homogeneous Area Number White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp SX Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Sampled Analytical ResultsSample Number Sample Location A1081SX-1 M001 S. corner of building 3%ChrysotilePipe Insulation Sealant A1081SX-2 M001 SE. corner of building 3%ChrysotilePipe Insulation Sealant A1081SX-3 M001 N. corner of building 3%ChrysotilePipe Insulation Sealant A1081SX-4 M002 Center of building NDGasket A1081SX-5 M003 N. side of building NDGasket A1081SX-6 M004 W. side of building NDGasket Note: ND =No Asbestos Detected, NA= Not Analyzed, TR = <1% Asbestos, PC = Point Count Asbestos Survey Report - Table 4 Page 1 of 1 SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 5 Damage and Hazard Assessment by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp SX Building Homogeneous Area Number DamageSubstrate AccessibilityMaterial Type Assessment Category Disturbance Potential M001 5 Slight Damage Rarely AccessedMetal MediumPipe Insulation Sealant Damage Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was classified into one of the following seven categories, as specified in EPA’s AHERA regulations (40 CFR §763.88): (1) Damaged or significantly damaged thermal system insulation ACM. (2) Damaged friable surfacing ACM. (3) Significantly damaged friable surfacing ACM. (4) Damaged or significantly damaged friable miscellaneous ACM. (5) ACBM with potential for damage. (6) ACBM with potential for significant damage. (7) Any remaining friable ACBM or friable suspected ACBM. (X) Not applicable (material is non-friable surfacing or miscellaneous material). The damage categories are defined as follows: “Undamaged” means the material had no visible damage, or extremely minor damage or surface marring (i.e., a room full of floor tile with only two or three small corners chipped off of the tile). “Slight Damage” means the material had visible damage evenly distributed over less than 10% of its surface, or localized over less than 25% of its surface. “Significantly Damaged” means the material had visible damage that is evenly distributed over 10% or more of its surface or localized over 25% or more of its surface. Hazard Assessment Categories Each homogeneous area of ACM was evaluated for accessibility and the hazard the material presents to building occupants and the general public. The assessment assumes a fully occupied building. “Inaccessible” means the material was located in an area that people had no reason to enter and could not access without special measures. One example would be above a solid ceiling. “Rarely-Accessed” identifies a material that was in a location that could be accessed but wasn't unless there was a specific needed. An example would be a pipe tunnel. Another example would be a high ceiling that is out of reach and not subject to any specific disturbances. “Periodic Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was accessible, was not occupied full time, but was accessed on a routine basis. An example would be a mechanical room or boiler room. “Continuous Access” identifies a material that was in a location that was occupied full time and was within reach of the occupants, or was frequently subject to direct disturbance. Examples would be exposed floor tile or a normal height ceiling. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 5 Page 1 of 1 SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Table 6 Estimated Abatement Costs by Homogeneous Area White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp SX Building Homogeneous Area Number Material Extended CostAmountUnit Cost M001 Pipe Coating 20 units $11.42 $228 Total Estimated Abatement Cost $228 Note: Estimated abatement costs do not include replacement costs or costs for a consultant to manage the abatement. Asbestos Survey Report - Table 6 Page 1 of 1 SX Building White Mesa Mill-Denison Mines Corp Appendix B Building Floor Plans 1 2 6 5 4 3 SX Building Sample Location & Number10 Explanation Asbestos-containing pipe insulation sealant PROJECT No: SHEET: DRAWN BY: REVIEWED BY: De n i s o n M i n e s C o r p . Wh i t e M e s a M i l l 64 2 5 S o u t h H i g h w a y 1 9 1 Bl a n d i n g , U T As b e s t o s & H a z a r d o u s M a t e r i a l s S a m p l e L o c a t i o n M a p DATE: DATE: DATE: REVISED BY: 640 E. Wilmington Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84106801.466.2223 ihi@ihi-env.com 0 20'40' 12U-A1081 1 of 1 Keith 07-11-2012 N V:\ - 1 2 P r o j e c t s \ 1 2 U - A 1 0 8 1 D e n i s o n M i l l S i t e A s b e s t o s I n s p & M P \ D r a w i n g s \ 1 2 U A 1 0 8 1 . d w g , s x b l d g , 7 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 2 3 : 1 1 : 4 9 P M , k e i t h f , A N S I f u l l b l e e d B ( 1 7 . 0 0 x 1 1 . 0 0 I n c h e s ) Appendix C Photographs Photograph 1 The white sealant used on the bottom pipe plastic insulation “T” contained 3% chrysotile asbestos. This is the only asbestos-containing material in the building. Photograph 2 The other suspect asbestos materials identified in the SX Building were the gaskets. The gaskets did not contain asbestos. Photograph 3 A general view of the SX Building. Appendix D Laboratory Results DIXON INFORMATION INC.---------, MICROSCOPY,ASBESTOS ANALYSIS &CONSULTING A.I.HA ACCREDITED LABORATO RY #101579 NVLAP LAB CODE 10101 2-0 June 13,2012 Mr.Lono Folau IHI Environmental 640 East Wilm ington Ave Salt Lake City,UT 84106 Ref:Batch #104909,Lab #H1975 I -HI9756 Received June 6,20 12 Test report Page I of 2 Denison Mines-White Mesa Mill SX Buildin g 6425 S Highway 191,Blanding UT Proj#12U-A1081 Sampled by Lono Folau Dear Mr. Folau: Samples H1975 1 through H19756 have been analyzed by visual estimation based on EPA- 600/M4-82-020 December 1982 optical microscopy test method,with guidance from the EPA /6001R-931l1 6 July 1993 andOSHA ill 191 methods. Appendix "A"contains statements which an accredited laboratory must make to meet the requirements of accrediting agencies.It also contains additional information about the method ofanalysis.Th is analysis is accredited by NVLAP. Appendix "A"must be included as an essential part of this test report.The data for this report is accredited by NVLAP for laboratory number 101012-0.It does not contain data or calibrations for tests performed under the AIHA program under lab code 101579. This report may be reproduced but all reproduction must be in full unless written approval is received from the laboratory for partial reproduction .The results of analysis are as follows: Lab H19751.Field 1 Pipe insulation sealant This sample contains two types of material:The first type is 90%glass woo l in yellow resin;the second type is 3 %chrysotile asbestos,3%talc fiber'and 2 %tremolite clea vage fragments'in off-wh ite binder.This sample is non-homogeneous. The first type is 5%of the sample.The second type is 95%of the sample. Lab H19752.Field 2 Pipe insulation sealant This sample contains two types of material: The first type is 3%chrysotile asbestos,2%talc fiber' and 2 %tremolite cleavage fragm ents'and 3%cross woven fiberglass in off-w hite binder with debris: the second type is 98%glass wool in yellow resin.This sample is non-homogeneous. The first type is 97%of the sample.The second type is 3%of the sample.L-+-78 W EST 2400 SOUTH ·SOUTH SALT LAKE,UTAH 84115-3013 ----+- PHONE 801-486-0800·FAX 801-486-0849 · RES.801-571-7695 Batch #104909 Lab #H1975 1 -Hl 9756 Page 2 of 2 Lab H19753.Field 3 Pipe insulation sealant This sample contains two types of material: The first type is 3%chrysotile as bestos,3%talc fiber ' and 2%tremolite cleavage fragments' in off-white binder withdebris;the second type is 98%glass wool in yellow resin. This sample is non-homogeneous. The first type is 90%of the sample.The second type is 10%of the sample. Lab H19754,Field 4 Tank gasket sealant This is clear silicone rubber with debris.Asbestos is none detected. Lab H19755, Field 5 Tank gasket sealant This is tan silicone rubber with debris.Asbestos is none detected. Lab H19756.Field 6 Tank gasket sealant This is off-white silicone with debris.Asbestos is none detected. 'Note:Under certain geologic conditions, talc and amphibole minerals occur in the same deposit. In some of those deposits,asbestiform fibers grow.The chemical composition and crystal structure of these fibers range between that of talc and that of anthophyllite,the fibers are asbestiforrn mineraloids which can be very difficult to characterize by PLM and/or TEM . 'Note:Some of the tremolite cleavage fragments have an aspect ratio exceeding 3:1.EPA 6001M4- 82-020 defines asbestos as being positively identified as one of the minerals listed in Table I-I with an aspect ratio exceeding 3:I.Guidance from EPA/6001R-93-116 would not classify this tremolite as asbestos.as the mean aspect ratio does not exceed 20:I.OSHA ill 191 has exempted tremolite cleavage fragments from inclusion in the OSHA asbestos standard. In order to be sure reagents and tools used for analysis are not contaminated with asbestos. blanks are tested.Asbestos was none detected in the blanks tested with this bulk sample set. Very truly yours, ~. Steve H.Dixon.President Analyst:Dustin Fritchman ~:~rt~ Analyst: Jaron D.Dixon ~D:-¥-Date Analyzed:June 13,2012 Turnaround Time -Circle One Dixon Information Inc. 78 West 2400 South South Salt Lake,Utah 84115 Phone:1-801-486-0800 Fax:1-801-486-0849 BULKANALYTICAL REQUEST FORM Batch Number /ot.J--9V1 R ush (24 hours $25.00 per sample) Non-rush (5 Working days $17.00 per sample) 1J~"i$.""Mi;!'!&-UJhilt:lI1esc....M;lt Name of location sample was taken at:-c-:~s"~)f,--_B=-:,t.<",;-=L-"d.,,-("-,nijWr--_----:::-c-_-c-__-=-=,-----_ Street address sample was taken at 1:,'(2S s./I~.hul"!Y 191 i /S1-tndr'nS 'UT Sampled by:~CyTO .!b/BAh- Description of Sample Lab # Report to be sent to:L~hlcu<- Company:Iii/Envl....onMeot<:2L Address:tfJtoE.Wi lh1i",oi'6J?Me. City::5'-C State:oJu r Zip Code:gJ{IO~ Telephone #:(8~1)'I66 -222.'1 Fax #:(g6!}i/,/,-9'1(., E-mail:!7~(~ih ;-en'!.CAm Field # A I0815X Billing to be sent to: Company:I IfI -E.-t1->'-I-'-·r-~-n-W/-~--t"-cd-----'-- Address:-------,------City:::---c,-----State:_ Zip Code:-;:-_ Telephone #:_ Fax #:----,--,----------,:-:-----:----;-------PO #:12.II -A 108 I--------- ---- ------- - Samples Collected Date Time I .R-e e ,n.s~la-ft'"...,sea/aN7 t $"/q 7 5/I2.~./0 7 2 1- .3 177ez ~ 'I -TAn k.Jasl:ef seMWVli;-/7 7:5lf 5 10 /97'7'5,5"/,i''l../"17-:510 Chain of Custody Submission of asbestos samples for analysis and/or signing a chain of custody is the equivalent of submission of a purchase order and constitutes an agreement to pay for services provided at Dixon Information Inco orated standard schedule of fees for services. Submitted by:~~~""'::-4f'!=...=~~--- Received b a ~~~~~~~~~~=:~;:::Received by Analyst: Returned by Lab:_ \'':,2 0 //OCJ ) A ppendix "A" "This report relates only to thc items tcsted.This report must not be used to claim product endorsement by NVLAP or AIHA." N VLAP and AIHA requires laboratories to state thc condition ofsamples received for testing:Th ese samples are in acceptable condition for analysis unless there is a statement in thc report of analysis that a test item has some characteristics or co ndition that precludes analysis or requi res a modification of standard analytical methodology.If a test item is not ac ceptable,the reasons for non-acceptability will be given under the laboratory number for that particular test item.The reported percentages of eac h material type are based on the sample received by the laboratory and may not be representative of the parent material.Orientation oftop and bottom may not be specified due to uncertainty oforientation. Methods of Analysis and Limit of Detection In air count analysis,the results may bc biased when interferences are noted. The acc urac y of asbestos analysis in bulk samples increases with increasing co ncentration of asbestos.Pigments,binders,small sample size,and mul tipic layers may affect the analysis sensitivity. There arc two methods for ana lysis of asbestos in a bulk test sample.Visual est imation is the most sensitive method.Ifan analys t makes a patient search,0.1%or less asbestos can bc detected in a bulk sample. The second meth od of ana lysis is a statistical approach called point counting.EPA will not accept visual estimations if a laboratory detects a trace of asbestos in a sample i.e.anything Icss than I%asbestos.Government agencies regulate asbestos containing materials (ACM) whenever the ACM is more than I%.OS HA requirements app ly on samples containing any amount ofasbestos. Due to the higher charge for a point count analysis,Dixon Information Inc.do cs not perform a point co unt unless authorized to do so by the cl ient.If a sample is point counted, when possible,various chemical and/or physical means may be uscd to concentrate the asbestos in the sample. Th is is permitt ed by the EPA method and it increases the accuracy ofthe analysis. Appendix E Regulatory Factors Several factors determine how asbestos in a building must be treated if it has the potential of being disturbed during a renovation or demolition. These factors include the following: Factor EPA Regulations for Asbestos Removal OSHA Regulations for Asbestos Removal Definition of asbestos in a building material Defines ACM as a material containing 1% or greater asbestos. Defines an ACM as one containing >1% asbestos. Regulation of asbestos in building materials Regulates only ACM. If the asbestos concentration in a material is shown to be “none detected” by initial analysis or 1% or less by point count analysis, EPA/DAQ does not regulate it. Regulates not only ACM but all materials containing any amount of asbestos. Regulations are not as stringent for materials containing equal-to or less-than 1% asbestos but greater than a “none detected” concentration. Determination of asbestos concentration in a gypsum board wall system Allows compositing of all layers (joint compound, joint tape, and gypsum board) into one sample, which decreases the possibility that the sample will be evaluated as an ACM. Requires that each layer of the wall system be analyzed and reported independently, which increases the possibility of a sample containing ACM or identifiable asbestos. Defines regulated and non-regulated ACM Yes – Regulated ACM include friable ACM and resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, gaskets and packing that have become friable and other ACM that have a high probability of becoming friable. No – Requirements for asbestos work procedures and worker training are less stringent for resilient flooring, asphalt roofing materials, and materials containing greater than “none detected” but not greater than 1% asbestos. Notification of asbestos abatement or building demolition required Yes – Utah DAQ must be notified on the appropriate form 10 working-days prior to an asbestos abatement of regulated asbestos material greater than the NESHAP-established notifiable quantity with demolition, or demolition where abatement is not required. No – Not required. Provision for allowing ACM to remain in a building during a demolition. Yes – Allows ACM resilient flooring, asphalt roofing, and certain other non- friable building materials in good condition to remain in a building during demolition as long as the demolition process will not render them friable. No – If any asbestos is left in a building during a demolition, the demolition workers are expected to meet the same OSHA requirements that an abatement contractor would meet if an abatement contractor was conducting an abatement of those materials. Appendix F Project Limitations PROJECT LIMITATIONS This Project was performed using, as a minimum, practices consistent with standards acceptable within the industry at this time, and a level of diligence typically exercised by EH&S consultants performing similar services. The procedures used attempt to establish a balance between the competing goals of limiting investigative and reporting costs and time, and reducing the uncertainty about unknown conditions. Therefore, because the findings of this report were derived from the scope, costs, time and other limitations, the conclusions should not be construed as a guarantee that all universal, toxic and/or hazardous wastes have been identified and fully evaluated. Furthermore, IHI assumes no responsibility for omissions or errors resulting from inaccurate information, or data, provided by sources outside of IHI or from omissions or errors in public records. It is emphasized that the final decision on how much risk to accept always remains with the client since IHI is not in a position to fully understand all of the client's needs. Clients with a greater aversion to risk may want to take additional actions while others, with less aversion to risk, may want to take no further action. ATTACHMENT B SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 02/1: APRIL 2012 COVER MATERIAL FIELD INVESTIGATION AND LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS ATTACHMENT B.1 APRIL 2012 COVER MATERIAL FIELD INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOGS SCALE APPROX LIMITS OF BORROW STOCKPILE ~--300 a 300 MWH 2012 TEST PITS MWH 2010 TEST PITS EXISTING GROUND CONTOUR (201 1 L1DAR SURVEY) ELEVATION OF PROPOSED TOP OF COVER EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION -5560- LEGEND PROJECT OENISOJ)~ ~ WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION G MWHTITLE MINES COVER MATERIAL BORROW STOCKPILES DATE FIGURE 1DenisonMines(USA)Corp TEST PIT LOCATIONS AUG 2012 FILE NAME 1009740 BRW GRAVELLY SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND GRAVELLY SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND FINE SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND FINE SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND GRAVELLY SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND GRAVELLY SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND COARSE SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND FINE SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND CLAYEY SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND CLAYEY SAND TEST PIT LOG LEGEND ATTACHMENT B.2 LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS DENISON MINES WHITE MESA MILL Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Testing Results for Borrow Stockpiles Borrow Stockpile ID Estimated Stockpile Volume1 (cy) Field Investigation Date Material Description USCS Sample ID Sample Depth (ft) Gravimetric Water Content (%) Atterberg Limits2 LL/PL/PI (%) PI Specific Gravity % Gravel %Sand %Silt % Clay % Fines E1 15,900 Apr‐2012 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML E1‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐23/18/5 5 2.61 0 41 43 16 59 118 11 1.3 x 10‐4 5.2 6.6 Topsoil SM A 5 4.5 NP NP ‐‐0.5 77.1 13.5 8.9 22 4.4 B SC B 12 5.7 23.3/11.2/12.1 12.1 2.64 13.1 50.3 22.6 14.0 37 6.0 U E3 16,800 Apr‐2012 Clay with Sand CH E3‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐54/24/30 30 2.53 0 23 29 48 77 105 19 9.5 x 10‐5 13.6 16.5 F E4 66,600 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 5 8.6 30.3/14.4/15.9 15.9 ‐‐0.0 41.2 39.1 19.7 59 7.7 U Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 6 9.0 33.2/14.3/18.9 18.9 ‐‐0.0 35.5 38.1 26.4 65 9.8 F Apr‐2012 Clay with Sand CH E5‐B0 ‐ 3 ‐‐51/24/27 27 2.56 2 15 36 47 83 16.2 F E6 100,700 Oct‐2010 Clay CL A 5 14.4 40.2/15.8/24.4 24.4 2.74 0.1 17.7 49.5 32.7 82 11.8 F E7 74,900 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 6 5.7 26.2/16.3/9.9 9.9 ‐‐0.0 30.2 56.1 13.7 70 5.9 U Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 2 7.4 23.0/12.0/11.0 11.0 ‐‐0.0 47.0 36.9 16.1 53 6.6 U Apr‐2012 Gravel with Clay and Sand GW‐GC E8‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐27/16/11 11 2.63 40.0 31.0 18.0 11.0 29 125 11 6.0 5.0 B W1 85,700 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 5 8.8 32.1/14.5/17.6 17.6 ‐‐0.0 40.6 37.6 21.8 59 8.4 U Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A surface 8.5 28.1/13.1/15.0 15.0 ‐‐0.2 41.5 42.5 15.8 58 6.5 U Apr‐2012 Clayey Sand with Gravel SC W2‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐24/14/10 10 2.62 30 45 15.0 10.0 25 6.9 4.7 B Apr‐2012 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel SC‐SM W2‐B0 ‐ 5 ‐‐18/13/5 5 2.63 41 45 9.0 5.0 14 128 9 1.5 x 10‐3 3.5 3.2 B W3 84,800 Oct‐2010 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML A surface 4.3 20.9/16.2/4.7 4.7 ‐‐0.2 44.2 39.2 16.4 56 6.7 Topsoil Oct‐2010 Topsoil (Sandy Silt) ML A 5 5.3 21.9/18.0/3.9 3.9 ‐‐0.0 32.6 54.3 13.1 67 5.7 Topsoil Apr‐2012 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML W4‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐26/19/7 7 2.60 0 38 44 18 62 7.2 Topsoil Sandy Clay CL W5‐A0 ‐ 4 ‐‐27/18/9 9 2.61 1 49 32 18 50 7.0 7.2 U Clayey Sand with Gravel SC W5‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐24/15/9 9 2.63 29 44 19 8 27 122 10 1.1 x 10‐3 3.6 4.1 B W6 93,400 Oct‐2010 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML A surface 3.3 23.1/16.5/6.6 6.6 ‐‐0.0 34.3 51.8 13.9 66 5.9 Topsoil W7 39,500 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 5 8.7 28.0/10.6/17.3 17.3 2.67 0.0 43.8 43.1 13.1 56 5.7 U Silty Sand with Gravel SM W8‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐NP NP 2.64 35 51 9 5 14 117 13 1.2 x 10‐3 5.0 3.2 B Silty Sand with Gravel SM W8‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐NP NP 2.66 32 40 18 10 28 6.4 4.7 B Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A surface 4.4 25.9/12.3/13.5 13.5 ‐‐0.0 37.4 45.2 17.4 63 7.0 U Apr‐2012 Sandy Clay CL W9‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐28/16/12 12 2.63 6 44 35 15 50 115 14 4.1 x 10‐4 7.7 6.3 U Notes: 14.0 1. Volumes estimated using 2009 topography and assuming a relatively flat bottom surface, except for stockpiles W5, W8 and W9. The volumes for stockpiles W8 and W9 were estimated by comparing the 2011 versus 2009 topography. The volume for stockpile W5 was estimated using a combination of both methods. 2. LL = Liquid Limt, 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 4. Group B (broadly graded), Group U (uniformly graded), and Group F (fine textured) based on evaluation of gradations and Benson (2012)*. *Benson, C., 2012. Electronic communication from Craig Benson, University of Wisconsin‐Madison, to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., regarding evaluation of gradations performed for potential cover soils for White Mesa, May 20. W9 60,250 Particle Size3 E8 227,300 W2 584,500 W4 90,000 W5 2,001,160 Apr‐2012 W8 178,411 Apr‐2012 E5 68,800 Gravimetric Water Content Est. using Rawls Eqn.3 (%) E2 92,000 Oct‐2010 Silty Sand/Clayey Sand 15 Bar Grav. Moist. Cont. (%) Sat. Hyd. Conc. (cm/s) Max. Density (pcf) Opt. Moist. Cont. (%) Soil Group4 White Mesa_2010 and 2012 lab results_8‐6‐12.xlsx 2010 and 2012 Cover Soil Gradations_mmd.xlsx 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) E1-A (topsoil) E3-A E5-B E8-B W2-A W2-B W4-B (topsoil) W5-A W5-B W8-A W8-B W9-B E2A-2010 E2B-2010 E4-2010 E5-2010 E6-2010 E7-2010 E8-2010 W1-2010 W2-2010 W3-2010 (topsoil) W4-2010 (topsoil) W6-2010 (topsoil) W7-2010 W9-2010 1. 5 i n c h Figure 1. White Mesa Cover Borrow Stockpiles Gradations from 2010 and 2012 Laboratory Testing No . 2 0 0 No . 1 0 0 No . 6 0 No . 2 0 No . 1 0 No . 4 3/ 8 i n c h 3/ 4 i n c h 1 i n c h 2010 and 2012 Cover Soil Gradations_mmd.xlsx 1 1 / 2 - i n c h 3/ 4 - i n c h 1- i n c h 3/ 8 - i n c h No . 4 No . 1 0 No . 2 0 No . 6 0 No . 1 0 0 No . 2 0 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) E3-A E5-B E8-B W2-A W2-B W5-A W5-B W8-A W8-B W9-B E2A-2010 E2B-2010 E4-2010 E5-2010 E6-2010 E7-2010 E8-2010 W1-2010 W2-2010 W7-2010 W9-2010 Group F (5% of total cover quantity available) Group B PI = NP -12 (48% of total cover quantity available) Group U PI = 9-18 (47% of total cover quantity available) Figure 2. White Mesa Cover Borrow Stockpiles Gradations from 2010 and 2012 Laboratory Testing (excluding topsoil samples) Note: Group B (broadly graded), Group U (uniformly graded), and Group F (fine textured) based on evaluation of gradations and Benson (2012)*. *Benson, C., 2012. Electronic communication from Craig Benson, University of Wisconsin-Madison, to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., regarding evaluation of gradations performed for potential cover soils for White Mesa, May 20. INDEX PROPERTIES OF SOILS FROM BLANDING, UTAH by C.H. Benson and X. Wang Geotechnics Report No. 12-37 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA 20 May 2012 1 1. SCOPE This report describes results of laboratory tests conducted to determine the specific gravity of solids, Atterberg Limits, and particle size distribution of twelve (12) soil samples from Blanding, Utah. The soils were delivered to the Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory as disturbed samples in 20-L buckets (2 buckets per soil). 2. METHODS The two buckets of soil for each sample were inspected, thoroughly blended by hand, and then tested to determine the specific gravity of solids, Atterberg Limits, and particle size distribution. The following ASTM methods were employed on the blended samples: D 422 Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils D 854 Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water Pycnometer D 4318 Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils 3. RESULTS A summary of the index properties is provided in Table 1. The particle size distribution curves are summarized in Fig. 1. Data recorded from the tests are in the appendix. Table 1. Summary of index properties for soils from Blanding, Utah. Sample ID Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Specific Gravity Gravel (%) Sand (%) Fines (%) E1-A 23 18 5 2.61 0 41 59 E3-A 54 24 30 2.53 0 23 77 E5-B 51 24 27 2.56 2 15 83 E8-B 27 16 11 2.63 40 31 29 W2-A 24 14 10 2.62 30 45 25 W4-A 26 19 7 2.60 0 38 62 W2-B 18 13 5 2.63 41 45 14 W5-A 27 18 9 2.61 1 49 50 W5-B 24 15 9 2.63 29 44 27 W8-A 17 NP NP 2.64 35 51 14 W8-B 15 NP NP 2.66 32 40 28 W9-B 28 16 12 2.63 6 44 50 2 Fig. 1. Particle size distribution curves for soils from Blanding, Utah. 0 20 40 60 80 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 E1-A E3-A E5-B E8-B W2-A W4-A W2-B W5-A W5-B W8-A W8-B W9-B Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) 3 APPENDIX: DATA SHEETS Test No.E1-A E3-A E5-B E8-B W2-A W4-A W2-B W5-A W5-B W8-A W8-B W9-B Volumetric Flask No.500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 500 Weight of Flask (g)W1 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 170.7 Dry Soil (g)W2 92.7 127.3 117.6 132.9 131.5 138.9 127.6 124.8 132.3 96.8 116.5 91.6 Weight of Flask + Dry Soil (g)W1 + W2 263.4 298 288.3 303.6 302.2 309.6 298.3 295.5 303 267.5 287.2 262.3 Weight of Flask + Dry Soil + Water (g)W1 + W2 + W3 727.2 747.1 741.7 752.5 751.4 755.6 749.2 747.1 752.1 730.2 742.8 726.8 Temperature T1 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 Weight of Flask + Water (g)W1 + W4 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 670 Temperature T2 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 Weight of Equal Volume of Water W4 - W3 35.5 50.2 45.9 50.4 50.1 53.3 48.4 47.7 50.2 36.6 43.7 34.8 Gs at Temperature W2 / (W4 - W3)2.611 2.536 2.562 2.637 2.625 2.606 2.636 2.616 2.635 2.645 2.666 2.632 A 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 0.9982 Gs at Temperature of 20oC A Gs 2.61 2.53 2.56 2.63 2.62 2.60 2.63 2.61 2.63 2.64 2.66 2.63 Specific Gravity ASTM D854 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Group Target Moisture WT of WT of Wet Soil WT of Dry Soil Water Actual Blow Liquid #N Can Moisture Can + Moisture Can + Moisture Can Content Number Limit #(G)(g)(g)(%)N 30 - 40 3 23.7 57.2 51.1 22.3 56 20 - 30 1 31.6 63.3 57.3 23.3 24 10 - 20 2 31.4 70.6 63.1 23.7 12 30 - 40 22 31.2 59.5 50.2 48.9 58 20 - 30 7 31.4 73.7 59.1 52.7 30 10 - 20 h 31.7 68.2 55.1 56.0 19 30 - 40 j 31.4 66.4 55 48.3 37 20 - 30 2,4 31.7 70.3 57.1 52.0 24 10 - 20 1 29.6 67.8 54.3 54.7 14 30 - 40 b 31.9 70.2 62.8 23.9 55 20 - 30 5 31.1 78.9 69.1 25.8 30 10 - 20 d1 28.7 78.8 67.6 28.8 14 Group Moisture WT of WT of Wet Soil WT of Dry Soil Water Plastic #Can Moisture Can + Moisture Can + Moisture Can Content Limit #(G)(g)(g)(%) E1-A 1 31.6 40.1 38.8 18.1 18 E3-A 6 31.3 49.4 45.9 24.0 24 E5-B 10 26.5 48.2 44 24.0 24 E8-B 3 28.9 49 46.3 15.5 16 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Plastic Limit Test (ASTM D 4318) 23 54 51 27 E1-A E3-A E5-B E8-B Liquid Limit Test (ASTM D 4318) 48.0 49.0 50.0 51.0 52.0 53.0 54.0 55.0 56.0 57.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t % Blow # E3-A Group_2 47.0 48.0 49.0 50.0 51.0 52.0 53.0 54.0 55.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Blow # E5-B Group_3 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Blow # E8-B Group_4 22.0 22.2 22.4 22.6 22.8 23.0 23.2 23.4 23.6 23.8 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t % Blow # E1-A Group_1 Group Target Moisture WT of WT of Wet Soil WT of Dry Soil Water Actual Blow Liquid #N Can Moisture Can + Moisture Can + Moisture Can Content Number Limit #(G)(g)(g)(%)N 30 - 40 b 31.9 78.4 70.1 21.7 51 20 - 30 5 31.1 83.4 73.4 23.6 23 10 - 20 10 26.5 79.1 68.7 24.6 18 30 - 40 3 28.9 91.5 78.8 25.5 29 20 - 30 9 31.5 84.6 73.4 26.7 21 10 - 20 d 28.7 78.4 67.3 28.8 11 30 - 40 h 31.7 68.1 62.2 19.3 12 20 - 30 j 31.4 85.5 77 18.6 20 10 - 20 7 31.4 88.7 80 17.9 33 30 - 40 1 31.5 81.8 71.8 24.8 45 20 - 30 6 31.3 87.1 75.1 27.4 19 10 - 20 2 31.4 78.5 67.7 29.8 12 Group Moisture WT of WT of Wet Soil WT of Dry Soil Water Plastic #Can Moisture Can + Moisture Can + Moisture Can Content Limit #(G)(g)(g)(%) W2-A 1 29.6 42.3 40.7 14.4 14 W4-A 22 31.2 49.4 46.5 19.0 19 W2-B 3 23.7 37.4 35.8 13.2 13 W5-A 2 31.7 52.5 49.4 17.5 18 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Plastic Limit Test (ASTM D 4318) 24 26 18 27 W2-A W4-A W2-B W5-A Liquid Limit Test (ASTM D 4318) 25.0 25.5 26.0 26.5 27.0 27.5 28.0 28.5 29.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t % Blow # W4-A Group_6 17.8 18.0 18.2 18.4 18.6 18.8 19.0 19.2 19.4 19.6 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Blow # W2-B Group_7 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Blow # W5-A Group_8 21.5 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t % Blow # W2-A Group_5 Group Target Moisture WT of WT of Wet Soil WT of Dry Soil Water Actual Blow Liquid #N Can Moisture Can + Moisture Can + Moisture Can Content Number Limit #(G)(g)(g)(%)N 30 - 40 f1 31.5 68.5 61.7 22.5 56 20 - 30 2 31.7 67.4 60.7 23.1 28 10 - 20 9 31.5 65.2 58.5 24.8 13 30 - 40 6 31.3 70.2 63.7 20.1 15 20 - 30 5 31.1 73.8 66.1 22.0 9 10 - 20 d 28.7 86 74.6 24.8 5 30 - 40 1 31.5 71.7 64.6 21.5 14 20 - 30 2 31.4 73.2 64.8 25.1 6 10 - 20 b 31.9 81.2 75.2 13.9 28 30 - 40 j 31.4 75.8 66.9 25.1 47 20 - 30 1 29.5 85.9 73.6 27.9 21 10 - 20 10 26.5 81.1 68.3 30.6 12 Group Moisture WT of WT of Wet Soil WT of Dry Soil Water Plastic #Can Moisture Can + Moisture Can + Moisture Can Content Limit #(G)(g)(g)(%) 9 7 31.3 54.3 51.3 15.0 15 10 NP 11 3 23.7 37.4 35.5 16.1 16 12 h 31.7 52.8 49.9 15.9 16 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Plastic Limit Test (ASTM D 4318) Liquid Limit Test (ASTM D 4318) 9 10 11 12 24 17 15 28 15.0 17.0 19.0 21.0 23.0 25.0 27.0 1 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t % Blow # W8-A Group_10 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 1 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Blow # W8-B Group_11 23.0 24.0 25.0 26.0 27.0 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t , % Blow # W9-B Group_12 22.0 22.5 23.0 23.5 24.0 24.5 25.0 10 100 Wa t e r C o n t e n t % Blow # W5-B Group_9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) Mechanical Sedimentation E1-A Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =791 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.8 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4"19.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 1/2"12.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/8"9.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 4.75 0.51 0.06 0.06 99.94 10 2.00 1.87 0.24 0.30 99.70 20 0.85 1.93 0.24 0.55 99.45 40 0.425 3.79 0.48 1.02 98.98 60 0.250 21.63 2.74 3.76 96.24 100 0.106 44.60 5.64 9.40 90.60 200 0.075 246.73 31.21 40.61 59.39 Pan 469.53 59.39 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =791 Geotechnics Laboratory E1-A Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 University of Wisconsin-Madison www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0130 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.61 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.010 40 98.98 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0 0.425 98.98 0.3 32 26.90 40.90 11.05 0.086619 53.76 54.32 0.5 30 24.90 38.90 11.38 0.062149 49.77 50.28 1.0 20 14.90 28.90 13.01 0.046998 29.78 30.09 2.0 19 13.90 27.90 13.18 0.033441 27.78 28.07 4.0 17 11.90 25.90 13.50 0.023938 23.78 24.03 8.0 16 10.90 24.90 13.67 0.017029 21.79 22.01 15.0 15.5 10.40 24.40 13.75 0.012473 20.79 21.00 30.0 15 9.90 23.90 13.83 0.008846 19.79 19.99 61.0 14.5 9.40 23.40 13.91 0.006222 18.79 18.98 120.0 14 8.90 22.90 13.99 0.004449 17.79 17.97 240.0 13.5 8.40 22.40 14.08 0.003155 16.79 16.96 1486.0 13 7.90 21.90 14.16 0.001272 15.79 15.95 2921.0 12.5 7.40 21.40 14.24 0.000910 14.79 14.94 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 E1-A Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) E3-A Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =929 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.8 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4"19 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 1/2"12.7 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/8"9.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 4.75 4.08 0.44 0.44 99.56 10 2.00 18.60 2.00 2.44 97.56 20 0.85 15.91 1.71 4.16 95.84 40 0.43 10.95 1.18 5.34 94.66 60 0.25 21.46 2.31 7.65 92.35 100 0.11 54.56 5.88 13.52 86.48 200 0.08 90.46 9.74 23.26 76.74 Pan 712.52 76.74 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =929 Geotechnics Laboratory E3-A Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 University of Wisconsin-Madison www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0129 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.63 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.005 200 94.66 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0 0.425 94.66 0.2 40 34.90 64.90 9.74 0.0808 66.40 70.14 0.5 38 32.90 62.90 10.07 0.0581 62.59 66.12 1.0 37 31.90 61.90 10.23 0.0414 60.69 64.11 2.0 35 29.90 59.90 10.56 0.0298 56.88 60.09 4.0 34 28.90 58.90 10.72 0.0212 54.98 58.08 8.0 33.5 28.40 58.40 10.80 0.0150 54.03 57.07 15.0 33 27.90 57.90 10.89 0.0110 53.08 56.07 30.0 32 26.90 56.90 11.05 0.0079 51.18 54.06 60.0 31 25.90 55.90 11.21 0.0056 49.27 52.05 123.0 30 24.90 54.90 11.38 0.0039 47.37 50.04 240.0 29 23.90 53.90 11.54 0.0028 45.47 48.03 1475.0 25 19.90 49.90 12.19 0.0012 37.86 39.99 2910.0 19 13.90 43.90 13.18 0.0009 26.44 27.93 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 E3-A Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) E5-B Mechanical Sedimentaion Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =890 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.800 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.400 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4"19.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 1/2"12.700 4.48 0.50 0.50 99.50 3/8"9.520 1.70 0.19 0.69 99.31 4 4.750 7.51 0.84 1.54 98.46 10 2.000 11.13 1.25 2.79 97.21 20 0.850 9.82 1.10 3.89 96.11 40 0.425 8.19 0.92 4.81 95.19 60 0.250 16.44 1.85 6.66 93.34 100 0.106 30.31 3.41 10.07 89.93 200 0.075 64.45 7.25 17.32 82.68 Pan 735.52 82.68 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =890 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 E5-B www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0132 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.56 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.022 40 95.19 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0.425 95.19 0.2 45 39.90 72.90 8.92 0.0791 77.64 81.57 0.5 43 37.90 70.90 9.25 0.0569 73.75 77.48 1.0 41 35.90 68.90 9.58 0.0410 69.86 73.39 2.0 39.5 34.40 67.40 9.82 0.0293 66.94 70.33 4.0 38.5 33.40 66.40 9.99 0.0209 64.99 68.28 8.0 38 32.90 65.90 10.07 0.0148 64.02 67.26 15.0 37 31.90 64.90 10.23 0.0109 62.07 65.21 31.0 36 30.90 63.90 10.40 0.0077 60.13 63.17 61.0 35 29.90 62.90 10.56 0.0055 58.18 61.13 120.0 33 27.90 60.90 10.89 0.0040 54.29 57.04 243.0 30 24.90 57.90 11.38 0.0029 48.45 50.90 1455.0 26 20.90 53.90 12.03 0.0012 40.67 42.73 2890.0 23 17.90 50.90 12.52 0.0009 34.83 36.59 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 E5-B Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) E8-B Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1639 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.800 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.400 296.07 18.07 18.07 81.93 3/4"19.000 84.17 5.14 23.20 76.80 1/2"12.700 106.06 6.47 29.68 70.32 3/8"9.520 70.74 4.32 33.99 66.01 4 4.750 98.02 5.98 39.97 60.03 10 2.000 63.00 3.84 43.82 56.18 20 0.850 25.01 1.53 45.34 54.66 40 0.425 34.36 2.10 47.44 52.56 60 0.250 86.55 5.28 52.72 47.28 100 0.106 129.17 7.88 60.60 39.40 200 0.075 173.98 10.62 71.22 28.78 Pan 471.62 28.78 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1639 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 E8-B www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0129 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.63 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.005 40 52.56 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0.425 52.56 0.2 33 27.90 45.40 10.89 0.0854 29.47 56.07 0.5 29 23.90 41.40 11.54 0.0622 25.24 48.03 1.0 25 19.90 37.40 12.19 0.0452 21.02 39.99 2.0 22.5 17.40 34.90 12.60 0.0325 18.38 34.97 4.0 21 15.90 33.40 12.85 0.0232 16.79 31.95 8.0 20 14.90 32.40 13.01 0.0165 15.74 29.94 15.0 19.5 14.40 31.90 13.09 0.0121 15.21 28.94 30.0 19 13.90 31.40 13.18 0.0086 14.68 27.93 60.0 18.5 13.40 30.90 13.26 0.0061 14.15 26.93 120.0 17.5 12.40 29.90 13.42 0.0043 13.10 24.92 242.0 16.5 11.40 28.90 13.58 0.0031 12.04 22.91 1438.0 15 9.90 27.40 13.83 0.0013 10.46 19.90 2873.0 13 7.90 25.40 14.16 0.0009 8.34 15.88 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison E8-B Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W2-A Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1766 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.800 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.400 120.36 6.82 6.82 93.18 3/4"19.000 48.06 2.72 9.54 90.46 1/2"12.700 99.19 5.62 15.16 84.84 3/8"9.520 102.84 5.82 20.98 79.02 4 4.750 167.06 9.46 30.44 69.56 10 2.000 177.05 10.03 40.47 59.53 20 0.850 110.90 6.28 46.75 53.25 40 0.425 68.17 3.86 50.61 49.39 60 0.250 104.06 5.89 56.51 43.49 100 0.106 159.98 9.06 65.57 34.43 200 0.075 164.67 9.33 74.89 25.11 Pan 443.32 25.11 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1766 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W2-A www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0130 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.62 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.007 40 49.39 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0.425 49.39 0.3 31 25.90 43.90 11.21 0.0870 25.77 52.17 0.5 27 21.90 39.90 11.87 0.0633 21.79 44.12 1.0 24 18.90 36.90 12.36 0.0457 18.80 38.07 2.0 22 16.90 34.90 12.69 0.0327 16.81 34.04 4.0 21 15.90 33.90 12.85 0.0233 15.82 32.03 8.0 20.5 15.40 33.40 12.93 0.0165 15.32 31.02 15.0 20 14.90 32.90 13.01 0.0121 14.82 30.02 30.0 19.5 14.40 32.40 13.09 0.0086 14.33 29.01 60.0 19 13.90 31.90 13.18 0.0061 13.83 28.00 120.0 18 12.90 30.90 13.34 0.0043 12.83 25.99 240.0 16 10.90 28.90 13.67 0.0031 10.84 21.96 415.0 15.5 10.40 28.40 13.75 0.0024 10.35 20.95 1465.0 15 9.90 27.90 13.83 0.0013 9.85 19.94 2866.0 14 8.90 26.90 13.99 0.0009 8.85 17.93 0.0 0 -5.10 12.90 16.28 #DIV/0!-5.07 -10.27 0.0 0 -5.10 12.90 16.28 #DIV/0!-5.07 -10.27 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W2-A Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W4-A Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1051 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.800 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.400 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4"19.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 1/2"12.700 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/8"9.520 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 4.750 1.15 0.11 0.11 99.89 10 2.000 1.75 0.17 0.28 99.72 20 0.850 2.75 0.26 0.54 99.46 40 0.425 7.72 0.73 1.27 98.73 60 0.250 23.69 2.25 3.53 96.47 100 0.106 24.75 2.36 5.88 94.12 200 0.075 342.77 32.62 38.50 61.50 Pan 646.26 61.50 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1051 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W4-A www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0131 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.6 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.012 40 98.73 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0 0.425 98.73 0.3 35 29.90 44.90 10.56 0.0849 59.75 60.52 0.5 29 23.90 38.90 11.54 0.0628 47.76 48.38 1.0 23 17.90 32.90 12.52 0.0462 35.77 36.23 2.0 19 13.90 28.90 13.18 0.0335 27.78 28.14 4.0 17.5 12.40 27.40 13.42 0.0239 24.78 25.10 8.0 17 11.90 26.90 13.50 0.0170 23.78 24.09 15.0 16.5 11.40 26.40 13.58 0.0124 22.78 23.08 35.0 16 10.90 25.90 13.67 0.0082 21.78 22.06 60.0 16 10.90 25.90 13.67 0.0062 21.78 22.06 120.0 15 9.90 24.90 13.83 0.0044 19.78 20.04 240.0 14.5 9.40 24.40 13.91 0.0031 18.79 19.03 406.0 14 8.90 23.90 13.99 0.0024 17.79 18.02 1455.0 14 8.90 23.90 13.99 0.0013 17.79 18.02 2857.0 14 8.90 23.90 13.99 0.0009 17.79 18.02 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W4-A Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W2-B Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1584 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.800 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.400 222.48 14.04 14.04 85.96 3/4"19.000 65.42 4.13 18.17 81.83 1/2"12.700 126.64 7.99 26.16 73.84 3/8"9.520 86.57 5.46 31.63 68.37 4 4.750 142.35 8.98 40.61 59.39 10 2.000 148.20 9.35 49.96 50.04 20 0.850 83.29 5.26 55.22 44.78 40 0.425 50.76 3.20 58.42 41.58 60 0.250 122.19 7.71 66.14 33.86 100 0.106 193.49 12.21 78.35 21.65 200 0.075 122.12 7.71 86.06 13.94 Pan 220.95 13.94 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1584 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W2-B www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0129 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.63 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.005 40 41.58 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0 0.425 41.58 0.2 27 21.90 36.40 11.87 0.0892 18.30 44.01 0.5 20 14.90 29.40 13.01 0.0661 12.45 29.94 1.0 19 13.90 28.40 13.18 0.0470 11.61 27.93 2.0 18 12.90 27.40 13.34 0.0334 10.78 25.92 4.0 17 11.90 26.40 13.50 0.0238 9.94 23.91 8.0 16.5 11.40 25.90 13.58 0.0169 9.53 22.91 15.0 16 10.90 25.40 13.67 0.0124 9.11 21.91 30.0 15.5 10.40 24.90 13.75 0.0088 8.69 20.90 60.0 15 9.90 24.40 13.83 0.0062 8.27 19.90 120.0 14.5 9.40 23.90 13.91 0.0044 7.85 18.89 240.0 14 8.90 23.40 13.99 0.0031 7.44 17.89 396.0 13.5 8.40 22.90 14.08 0.0024 7.02 16.88 1446.0 13 7.90 22.40 14.16 0.0013 6.60 15.88 2848.0 12 6.90 21.40 14.32 0.0009 5.77 13.87 0.0 0 -5.10 9.40 16.28 #DIV/0!-4.26 -10.25 0.0 0 -5.10 9.40 16.28 #DIV/0!-4.26 -10.25 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W2-B Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W5-A Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1100 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.800 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.400 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/4"19.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 1/2"12.700 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3/8"9.520 4.00 0.36 0.36 99.64 4 4.750 6.16 0.56 0.92 99.08 10 2.000 22.81 2.07 3.00 97.00 20 0.850 21.74 1.98 4.97 95.03 40 0.425 21.89 1.99 6.96 93.04 60 0.250 52.45 4.77 11.73 88.27 100 0.106 54.44 4.95 16.68 83.32 200 0.075 362.25 32.94 49.62 50.38 Pan 554.15 50.38 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1100 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W5-A www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0130 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.61 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.010 40 93.04 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0 0.425 93.04 0.3 33 27.90 43.90 10.89 0.0860 52.42 56.34 0.5 27 21.90 37.90 11.87 0.0635 41.14 44.22 1.0 22 16.90 32.90 12.69 0.0464 31.75 34.13 2.0 19 13.90 29.90 13.18 0.0334 26.11 28.07 4.0 18 12.90 28.90 13.34 0.0238 24.24 26.05 8.0 17.5 12.40 28.40 13.42 0.0169 23.30 25.04 15.0 17 11.90 27.90 13.50 0.0124 22.36 24.03 30.0 16.5 11.40 27.40 13.58 0.0088 21.42 23.02 60.0 16.5 11.40 27.40 13.58 0.0062 21.42 23.02 120.0 16 10.90 26.90 13.67 0.0044 20.48 22.01 242.0 15.5 10.40 26.40 13.75 0.0031 19.54 21.00 380.0 15 9.90 25.90 13.83 0.0025 18.60 19.99 1430.0 15 9.90 25.90 13.83 0.0013 18.60 19.99 2832.0 15 9.90 25.90 13.83 0.0009 18.60 19.99 0.0 0 -5.10 10.90 16.28 #DIV/0!-9.58 -10.30 0.0 0 -5.10 10.90 16.28 #DIV/0!-9.58 -10.30 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W5-A Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W5-B Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1512 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.8000 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.4000 269.02 17.79 17.79 82.21 3/4"19.0000 10.19 0.67 18.47 81.53 1/2"12.7000 59.39 3.93 22.39 77.61 3/8"9.5200 38.95 2.58 24.97 75.03 4 4.7500 61.39 4.06 29.03 70.97 10 2.0000 61.84 4.09 33.12 66.88 20 0.8500 42.92 2.84 35.96 64.04 40 0.4250 71.73 4.74 40.70 59.30 60 0.2500 204.64 13.53 54.24 45.76 100 0.1060 115.96 7.67 61.91 38.09 200 0.0750 171.25 11.33 73.23 26.77 Pan 404.71 26.77 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1512 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W5-B www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0129 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.63 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.005 40 59.30 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0 0.425 59.30 0.2 31 25.90 40.90 11.21 0.0867 30.86 52.05 0.5 25 19.90 34.90 12.19 0.0639 23.71 39.99 1.0 21 15.90 30.90 12.85 0.0464 18.95 31.95 2.0 19 13.90 28.90 13.18 0.0332 16.56 27.93 4.0 18 12.90 27.90 13.34 0.0236 15.37 25.92 8.0 17 11.90 26.90 13.50 0.0168 14.18 23.91 15.0 16.5 11.40 26.40 13.58 0.0123 13.58 22.91 30.0 16 10.90 25.90 13.67 0.0087 12.99 21.91 60.0 15.5 10.40 25.40 13.75 0.0062 12.39 20.90 120.0 15 9.90 24.90 13.83 0.0044 11.80 19.90 240.0 14 8.90 23.90 13.99 0.0031 10.61 17.89 429.0 13 7.90 22.90 14.16 0.0024 9.41 15.88 1209.0 12 6.90 21.90 14.32 0.0014 8.22 13.87 2128.0 12 6.90 21.90 14.32 0.0011 8.22 13.87 4683.0 11 5.90 20.90 14.48 0.0007 7.03 11.86 0.0 0 -5.10 9.90 16.28 #DIV/0!-6.08 -10.25 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W5-B Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W8-A Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1354 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.800 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.400 200.78 14.83 14.83 85.17 3/4"19.000 72.08 5.32 20.15 79.85 1/2"12.700 68.48 5.06 25.20 74.80 3/8"9.520 49.77 3.67 28.88 71.12 4 4.750 78.25 5.78 34.66 65.34 10 2.000 79.27 5.85 40.51 59.49 20 0.850 52.87 3.90 44.41 55.59 40 0.425 89.60 6.62 51.03 48.97 60 0.250 203.74 15.04 66.07 33.93 100 0.106 186.92 13.80 79.88 20.12 200 0.075 85.98 6.35 86.22 13.78 Pan 186.57 13.78 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1354 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W8-A www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0129 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.64 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.002 40 48.97 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0 0.425 48.97 0.3 20 14.90 26.90 13.01 0.0931 14.63 29.87 0.5 18 12.90 24.90 13.34 0.0667 12.67 25.86 1.0 16 10.90 22.90 13.67 0.0477 10.70 21.85 2.0 15 9.90 21.90 13.83 0.0339 9.72 19.85 4.0 14 8.90 20.90 13.99 0.0241 8.74 17.84 8.0 14 8.90 20.90 13.99 0.0171 8.74 17.84 15.0 13.5 8.40 20.40 14.08 0.0125 8.25 16.84 30.0 13.5 8.40 20.40 14.08 0.0088 8.25 16.84 61.0 13 7.90 19.90 14.16 0.0062 7.76 15.84 120.0 12 6.90 18.90 14.32 0.0045 6.77 13.83 230.0 12 6.90 18.90 14.32 0.0032 6.77 13.83 419.0 11 5.90 17.90 14.48 0.0024 5.79 11.83 1200.0 11 5.90 17.90 14.48 0.0014 5.79 11.83 2118.0 10 4.90 16.90 14.65 0.0011 4.81 9.82 4673.0 9.5 4.40 16.40 14.73 0.0007 4.32 8.82 -59096737.0 0 -5.10 6.90 16.28 #NUM!-5.01 -10.22 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W8-A Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W8-B Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1016 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.8 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.4 249.88 24.59 24.59 75.41 3/4"19.0 0.00 0.00 24.59 75.41 1/2"12.7 48.98 4.82 29.41 70.59 3/8"9.52 7.89 0.78 30.19 69.81 4 4.75 14.19 1.40 31.59 68.41 10 2.00 24.17 2.38 33.96 66.04 20 0.85 23.12 2.28 36.24 63.76 40 0.425 52.87 5.20 41.44 58.56 60 0.250 114.81 11.30 52.74 47.26 100 0.106 74.36 7.32 60.06 39.94 200 0.075 119.61 11.77 71.83 28.17 Pan 286.23 28.17 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1016 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W8-B www.uwgeoengineering.org Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0128 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.66 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 0.998 40 58.56 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0 0.425 58.56 0.2 30 24.90 39.90 11.38 0.0866 29.10 49.69 0.5 25 19.90 34.90 12.19 0.0634 23.25 39.71 1.0 21 15.90 30.90 12.85 0.0460 18.58 31.73 2.0 19 13.90 28.90 13.18 0.0329 16.24 27.74 4.0 17 11.90 26.90 13.50 0.0236 13.91 23.75 8.0 16.5 11.40 26.40 13.58 0.0167 13.32 22.75 15.0 16 10.90 25.90 13.67 0.0122 12.74 21.75 30.0 16 10.90 25.90 13.67 0.0087 12.74 21.75 60.0 15 9.90 24.90 13.83 0.0062 11.57 19.76 120.0 15 9.90 24.90 13.83 0.0044 11.57 19.76 220.0 14 8.90 23.90 13.99 0.0032 10.40 17.76 408.0 13.5 8.40 23.40 14.08 0.0024 9.82 16.76 1189.0 13.5 8.40 23.40 14.08 0.0014 9.82 16.76 2107.0 12.5 7.40 22.40 14.24 0.0011 8.65 14.77 4662.0 11.5 6.40 21.40 14.40 0.0007 7.48 12.77 -59096748.0 0 -5.10 9.90 16.28 #NUM!-5.96 -10.18 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W8-B Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) www.uwgeoengineering.org ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.00010.0010.010.1110100 Pe r c e n t F i n e r ( % ) Particle Size (mm) W9-B Mechanical Sedimentation Sample ID:Test Date: Weight of Air Dry Sample =1027 g Initials: Sieve No.Sieve Opening Weight Retained on Each Sieve Percent Retained on Each Sieve Cumulative Percent Retained Percent Finer (mm)(g)(%)(%)(%) 2"50.8 0.00 0 0 100 1"25.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 3/4"19.0 11.91 1.16 1.16 98.84 1/2"12.7 0.00 0.00 1.16 98.84 3/8"9.52 12.33 1.20 2.36 97.64 4 4.75 36.00 3.51 5.87 94.13 10 2.00 46.08 4.49 10.35 89.65 20 0.85 33.14 3.23 13.58 86.42 40 0.425 23.26 2.26 15.84 84.16 60 0.250 36.69 3.57 19.42 80.58 100 0.106 51.93 5.06 24.47 75.53 200 0.075 261.16 25.43 49.90 50.10 Pan 514.52 50.10 100.00 0.00 Total Weight (g) =1027 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Mechanical Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W9-B Sample ID:Temp. Correction, A 0.0129 Specific Gravity, Gs = 2.63 Hydrometer Type:ASTM 152H Dry Weight of Soil, W (g) =50 Temperature of Test, C 23 Meniscus Correction, Fm =0.5 Zero Correction, Fz 6 Temperature Correction, FT =0.9 a 1.005 40 84.16 Time Hydrometer Rcp Rcl L D Final Percent Percent (min)Reading, R (cm)(mm)Finer (%)Finer 0.0 0 0.425 84.16 0.2 40 34.90 50.90 9.74 0.0808 59.02 70.14 0.5 31 25.90 41.90 11.21 0.0613 43.80 52.05 1.0 25 19.90 35.90 12.19 0.0452 33.66 39.99 2.0 21 15.90 31.90 12.85 0.0328 26.89 31.95 4.0 19 13.90 29.90 13.18 0.0235 23.51 27.93 8.0 18.5 13.40 29.40 13.26 0.0167 22.66 26.93 15.0 18 12.90 28.90 13.34 0.0122 21.82 25.92 30.0 18 12.90 28.90 13.34 0.0086 21.82 25.92 64.0 17 11.90 27.90 13.50 0.0059 20.13 23.91 126.0 16 10.90 26.90 13.67 0.0043 18.43 21.91 201.0 16 10.90 26.90 13.67 0.0034 18.43 21.91 388.0 15.5 10.40 26.40 13.75 0.0024 17.59 20.90 1169.0 15.5 10.40 26.40 13.75 0.0014 17.59 20.90 2088.0 14 8.90 24.90 13.99 0.0011 15.05 17.89 4642.0 13 7.90 23.90 14.16 0.0007 13.36 15.88 -59096768.0 0 -5.10 10.90 16.28 #NUM!-8.63 -10.25 Formulas: FT = -4.85 + 0.25 T a = f(Gs) = 1.65 Gs / (2.65 (Gs - 1)) Rcp = R + FT - FZ Rcl = R + Fm L = f(R) = 16.3 - 0.1641 Rcl η = 0.0911 x 10-4 (g-s/cm2) (if T = 25 oC) Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Sedimentation Particle Size Analysis - ASTM D 422 W9-B Material Max. Size and Percentage (%) ()()()mint cmLAmmD=()()ωγ− η==1G 30T,GfA s s 10050 aRFinerPercentcp= COMPACTION AND HYDRAULIC PROPERTIES OF SOILS FROM BLANDING, UTAH by C.H. Benson and X. Wang Geotechnics Report No. 12-41 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA 24 July 2012 1 1. SCOPE This report describes results of laboratory tests to determine the compaction and hydraulic properties of soil samples from Blanding, Utah. The soils were delivered to the Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory as disturbed samples in 20-L buckets (2 buckets per soil). Index properties of the soils were determined previously and are reported in Geotechnics Report No. 12-37. 2. METHODS The same soil samples used for index properties testing were used for the tests conducted in this study. Tests were conducted to determine standard Proctor compaction curves, saturated hydraulic conductivity, soil water characteristic curves (SWCCs), and 1.5 MPa moisture content. The following ASTM methods were employed: D 698 Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft (600 kN-m/m)) D 5084 Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall Permeameter D 6836 Standard Test Methods for Determination of the Soil Water Characteristic Curve for Desorption Using Hanging Column, Pressure Extractor, Chilled Mirror Hygrometer, or Centrifuge Test specimens for the saturated hydraulic conductivity, SWCC, and 1.5 MPa moisture content tests were prepared at 85% of maximum dry unit weight and optimum water content per standard Proctor, as specified by the requestor. Saturated hydraulic conductivity of each test specimen was measured in a flexible-wall permeameter following the methods in ASTM D 5084. The backpressure was set at 30 psi and the hydraulic gradient was 10. The effective stress was set at 5.0 psi to simulate the low state of stress in a cover while ensuring good contact between the membrane and the test specimen. The wet end of the SWCC was measured following the procedures in ASTM D 6836 using a hanging column (Method A) or a pressure plate extractor (Method B). A chilled mirror hygrometer (Method D) was used to complete the dry end of the SWCC after the hanging column test or pressure plate test was complete. SWCCs were prepared by combining data from the pressure plate and chilled mirror hygrometer tests as described in D 6836. van Genuchten’s equation was fit to the SWCC data: θ−θr θs −θr =1 1+(αψ)n ⎡ ⎣⎢⎤ ⎦⎥ m (1) 2 where θ is volumetric water content, θr is residual water content, θs is saturated volumetric water content, ψ is matric suction, and α, m, and n are fitting parameters. Equation 1 was fit to the data using a non-linear least-squares optimization procedure with the constraint m = 1-n-1. Moisture contents at 1.5 MPa were determined using the procedures in Method D of ASTM D 6836. Test specimens were prepared at three moisture contents bracketing a suction of 1.5 MPa. Moisture content was then regressed on suction, and the moisture content at 1.5 MPa was determined from the regression equation. 3. RESULTS Optimum water contents and maximum dry unit weights from the compaction tests are summarized in Table 1. Saturated hydraulic conductivities and van Genuchten parameters for the SWCCs are summarized in Table 2. Gravimetric moisture contents at 1.5 MPa are summarized in Table 3. Data recorded from the tests are in the appendix. 3 Table 1. Summary of index properties for soils from Blanding, Utah. Sample ID Optimum Water Content (%) Maximum Dry Unit Weight (pcf) E1-A1/2 Composite 11.0 118 E3-A1/2 Composite 19.0 105 E8-B1/2 Composite 10.5 125 W2-B1/2 Composite 8.5 128 W5-B1/2 Composite 10.0 122 W8-A1/2 Composite 13.0 117 W9-B1/2 Composite 14.0 115 Table 2. Summary of saturated hydraulic conductivities and van Genuchten Parameters Sample ID Sat. Hydraulic Conductivity (cm/s) Saturated Vol. Water Content (s) Residual Vol. Water Content (r)  (1/kPa) n E1-A1/2 Composite 1.3x10-4 0.38 0.024 0.0797 1.35 E3-A1/2 Composite 9.5x10-5 0.44 0.00 0.0787 1.19 W2-B1/2 Composite 1.5x10-3 0.32 0.00 0.2160 1.32 W5-B1/2 Composite 1.1x10-3 0.36 0.00 0.1180 1.35 W8-A1/2 Composite 1.2x10-3 0.37 0.00 0.1840 1.35 W9-B1/2 Composite 4.1x10-4 0.40 0.00 0.0729 1.26 Table 3. Summary of 1.5 MPa gravimetric moisture contents. Sample ID Gravimetric Water Content (%) E8-B1/2 Composite 6.0 W2-A1/2 Composite 6.9 W5-A1/2 Composite 7.0 W8-B1/2 Composite 6.4 4 APPENDIX: DATA SHEETS Sample I.D.E1_(A1/A2)Test Date Procedure A Volume of Mold (ft3)0.033 Weight of Hammer (lb)5.5 Hammer Drop (in)12 No. of Blows per Layer 25 No. of Layers 3 WT of Mold WT of Mold + Wet Soil WT of Wet Soil Wet Unit Weight Water Content Dry Unit Weight (lb)(lb)(lb)(pcf)(%)(pcf) 9.48 13.05 3.57 107.13 3.6 103.38 9.48 13.45 3.97 119.09 7.6 110.65 9.48 13.86 4.38 131.44 11.0 118.40 9.48 13.81 4.33 129.94 13.6 114.37 9.48 13.47 3.99 119.56 19.7 99.87 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 T2 M7 14 T4 B3 30.8 24.4 30.7 24.6 25.3 201.8 135.8 153.7 173.2 175.9 195.8 127.9 141.5 155.4 151.1 3.6 7.6 11.0 13.6 19.7 WT of Can + Dry Soil (g) Water Content (%) 6/8/2012 Test No. 1 2 3 STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 698) WT of Can + Wet Soil (g) Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory 4 5 Test No Can No. WT of Can (g) Sample I.D.E3_(A1/A2)Test Date Procedure A Volume of Mold (ft3)0.033 Weight of Hammer (lb)5.5 Hammer Drop (in)12 No. of Blows per Layer 25 No. of Layers 3 WT of Mold WT of Mold + Wet Soil WT of Wet Soil Wet Unit Weight Water Content Dry Unit Weight (lb)(lb)(lb)(pcf)(%)(pcf) 9.48 13.27 3.79 113.56 14.2 99.45 9.48 13.59 4.11 123.19 17.8 104.56 9.48 13.67 4.19 125.74 21.2 103.76 9.48 13.56 4.08 122.43 23.7 98.95 9.48 13.44 3.96 118.87 26.9 93.64 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 SL 7 W3 62 A3 31.8 24.7 24.6 31.2 25.1 172.6 147 143 163.1 162.2 155.1 128.5 122.3 137.8 133.1 14.2 17.8 21.2 23.7 26.9 WT of Can (g) WT of Can + Wet Soil (g) WT of Can + Dry Soil (g) Water Content (%) 2 3 4 5 Test No Can No. Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 698) 6/8/2012 Test No. 1 Sample I.D.E8_(B1/B2)Test Date Procedure C Volume of Mold (ft3)0.075 Weight of Hammer (lb)5.5 Hammer Drop (in)12 No. of Blows per Layer 56 No. of Layers 3 WT of Mold WT of Mold + Wet Soil WT of Wet Soil Wet Unit Weight Water Content Dry Unit Weight (lb)(lb)(lb)(pcf)(%)(pcf) 14.20 24.23 10.03 133.67 8.7 122.98 14.20 24.54 10.34 137.93 10.5 124.82 14.20 24.44 10.24 136.59 12.2 121.75 14.20 24.25 10.05 134.03 13.8 117.81 0.00 0.00 #DIV/0!#DIV/0! #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 J4 EA TR3L 2 - 4 24.9 31.2 24.6 30.9 176.2 160.6 166.3 159.8 164.1 148.3 150.9 144.2 8.7 10.5 12.2 13.8 #DIV/0! WT of Can (g) WT of Can + Wet Soil (g) WT of Can + Dry Soil (g) Water Content (%) 2 3 4 5 Test No Can No. Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 698) 6/10/2012 Test No. 1 Sample I.D.W2_(B1/B2)Test Date Procedure C Volume of Mold (ft3)0.075 Weight of Hammer (lb)5.5 Hammer Drop (in)12 No. of Blows per Layer 56 No. of Layers 3 WT of Mold WT of Mold + Wet Soil WT of Wet Soil Wet Unit Weight Water Content Dry Unit Weight (lb)(lb)(lb)(pcf)(%)(pcf) 14.20 23.93 9.73 129.71 6.0 122.41 14.20 24.54 10.34 137.82 8.1 127.48 14.20 24.60 10.40 138.69 9.3 126.88 14.20 24.42 10.22 136.28 11.0 122.73 0 0 #DIV/0!#DIV/0! #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 T4 28 14 3 24.5 24.5 30.6 31.1 189.8 175.1 212.6 216.2 180.5 163.8 197.1 197.8 6.0 8.1 9.3 11.0 #DIV/0! WT of Can (g) WT of Can + Wet Soil (g) WT of Can + Dry Soil (g) Water Content (%) 2 3 4 5 Test No Can No. Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 698) 6/10/2012 Test No. 1 Sample I.D.W5_(B1/B2)Test Date Procedure C Volume of Mold (ft3)0.075 Weight of Hammer (lb)5.5 Hammer Drop (in)12 No. of Blows per Layer 56 No. of Layers 3 WT of Mold WT of Mold + Wet Soil WT of Wet Soil Wet Unit Weight Water Content Dry Unit Weight (lb)(lb)(lb)(pcf)(%)(pcf) 14.20 23.26 9.06 120.85 5.5 114.51 14.20 23.60 9.40 125.28 6.9 117.22 14.20 24.27 10.07 134.21 10.1 121.91 14.20 24.28 10.08 134.39 11.9 120.14 14.20 24.02 9.82 130.90 15.1 113.70 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 21 Y1 5 W3 29 31.1 30.9 24.3 24.7 30.7 196.9 208.1 164 171.8 184.4 188.2 196.7 151.2 156.2 164.2 5.5 6.9 10.1 11.9 15.1 WT of Can (g) WT of Can + Wet Soil (g) WT of Can + Dry Soil (g) Water Content (%) 2 3 4 5 Test No Can No. Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 698) 6/10/2012 Test No. 1 Sample I.D.W8_(A1/A2)Test Date Procedure C Volume of Mold (ft3)0.075 Weight of Hammer (lb)5.5 Hammer Drop (in)12 No. of Blows per Layer 56 No. of Layers 3 WT of Mold WT of Mold + Wet Soil WT of Wet Soil Wet Unit Weight Water Content Dry Unit Weight (lb)(lb)(lb)(pcf)(%)(pcf) 14.20 22.99 8.79 117.16 6.7 109.79 14.20 23.55 9.35 124.72 9.5 113.90 14.20 23.95 9.75 130.00 11.3 116.81 14.20 24.13 9.93 132.43 14.4 115.80 14.20 23.74 9.54 127.15 16.7 108.97 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 W81 B 29 2-4 J4 24.7 30.9 30.7 30.9 24.9 185.3 175 174.6 179.8 186.5 175.2 162.5 160 161.1 163.4 6.7 9.5 11.3 14.4 16.7 WT of Can (g) WT of Can + Wet Soil (g) WT of Can + Dry Soil (g) Water Content (%) 2 3 4 5 Test No Can No. Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 698) 6/9/2012 Test No. 1 Sample I.D.W9_(B1/B2)Test Date Procedure A Volume of Mold (ft3)0.033 Weight of Hammer (lb)5.5 Hammer Drop (in)12 No. of Blows per Layer 25 No. of Layers 3 WT of Mold WT of Mold + Wet Soil WT of Wet Soil Wet Unit Weight Water Content Dry Unit Weight (lb)(lb)(lb)(pcf)(%)(pcf) 9.47 13.00 3.53 105.85 4.5 101.25 9.47 13.27 3.80 113.92 7.6 105.89 9.47 13.62 4.15 124.64 10.8 112.49 9.47 13.81 4.34 130.28 14.6 113.65 9.47 13.59 4.12 123.72 18.1 104.76 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 B26 SL 7 X2 R17-3 30.8 31.8 24.7 30.8 30.8 201.1 187.8 161.1 185.1 169.1 193.7 176.8 147.8 165.4 147.9 4.5 7.6 10.8 14.6 18.1 WT of Can (g) WT of Can + Wet Soil (g) WT of Can + Dry Soil (g) Water Content (%) 2 3 4 5 Test No Can No. Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory STANDARD PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST (ASTM D 698) 6/10/2012 Test No. 1 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00 130.00 140.00 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 Dr y U n i t W e i g h t ( p c f ) Water Contentn(%) E1 E3 E8 W2 W5 W8 W9 Test Date : Cell Pressure =35.8 psi Diameter of Sample, D = 15.2 cm Inflow Pressure = 31.6 psi Length of Sample, L = 11.6 cm Outflow Pressre =30.0 psi Area of Sample, A = 182.41 cm2 Pressure Difference =1.6 psi Sample Volume, V =2123.9 cm3 Effective Stress = 5.0 psi ain = 5 cm2 Hydraulic Gradient, i =10 aout = 5 cm2 Weight of wet sample =3787.6 (g)Sample Water Content =11.0 (%) Wet Density =1.8 g/cm3 Dry Density =1.61 g/cm3 Can #WT of Can WT of Can + Wet Soil WT of Can + Dry Soil Water Content (g)(g)(g)(%) 11.00 Date, Time Inflow OutFlow ∆t H Time K Qout / Qin Qin Qout (sec)(cm)(min)(cm/sec) 8:23:00 4.8 20.5 0.0 15.7 0.0 8:25:00 11.0 14.5 120.0 3.5 2.0 1.33E-04 1.0 31 30 8:26:00 14.0 11.5 60.0 -2.5 3.0 1.41E-04 1.0 15 15 8:27:00 16.6 9.1 60.0 -7.5 4.0 1.24E-04 0.9 13 12 8:28:00 19.0 7.0 60.0 -12.0 5.0 1.16E-04 0.9 12 10.5 8:29:00 21.2 4.6 60.0 -16.6 6.0 1.25E-04 1.1 11 12 8:30:00 23.4 2.7 60.0 -20.7 7.0 1.16E-04 0.9 11 9.5 8:32:00 0.0 24.7 120.0 24.7 9.0 8:33:00 3.8 21.0 60.0 17.2 10.0 1.49E-04 1.0 19 18.5 8:34:00 7.3 17.5 60.0 10.2 11.0 1.48E-04 1.0 17.5 17.5 8:35:00 10.5 14.5 60.0 4.0 12.0 1.38E-04 0.9 16 15 8:36:00 13.5 12.0 60.0 -1.5 13.0 1.29E-04 0.8 15 12.5 8:37:00 16.0 9.2 60.0 -6.8 14.0 1.30E-04 1.1 12.5 14 8:38:00 18.8 6.8 60.0 -12.0 15.0 1.34E-04 0.9 14 12 8:39:00 21.0 4.6 60.0 -16.4 16.0 1.19E-04 1.0 11 11 8:40:00 23.2 2.6 60.0 -20.6 17.0 1.19E-04 0.9 11 10 8:42:00 0.0 24.0 120.0 24.0 19.0 8:43:00 4.0 20.0 60.0 16.0 20.0 1.61E-04 1.0 20 20 8:44:00 7.5 16.8 60.0 9.3 21.0 1.42E-04 0.9 17.5 16 8:45:00 10.8 13.8 60.0 3.0 22.0 1.41E-04 0.9 16.5 15 8:46:00 13.7 11.0 60.0 -2.7 23.0 1.35E-04 1.0 14.5 14 8:47:00 16.4 8.4 60.0 -8.0 24.0 1.32E-04 1.0 13.5 13 8:48:00 19.0 6.0 60.0 -13.0 25.0 1.30E-04 0.9 13 12 8:49:00 21.3 3.8 60.0 -17.5 26.0 1.23E-04 1.0 11.5 11 8:50:00 23.6 1.6 60.0 -22.0 27.0 1.29E-04 1.0 11.5 11 K (cm/s) =1.3E-04 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Test ASTM D 5084 7/17/12E1_(A1/A2)Sample I.D. ( ) ( ) ( )  ∆ ∆ ∆+= 2 1 * * H HLntA L aa aaK outin outin s Test Date : Cell Pressure =35.8 psi Diameter of Sample, D = 15.2 cm Inflow Pressure = 31.6 psi Length of Sample, L = 11.6 cm Outflow Pressre =30.0 psi Area of Sample, A = 182.41 cm2 Pressure Difference =1.6 psi Sample Volume, V =2123.9 cm3 Effective Stress = 5.0 psi ain = 5 cm2 Hydraulic Gradient, i =10 aout = 5 cm2 Weight of wet sample =3615.2 (g)Sample Water Content =19.0 (%) Wet Density =1.7 g/cm3 Dry Density =1.43 g/cm3 Can #WT of Can WT of Can + Wet Soil WT of Can + Dry Soil Water Content (g)(g)(g)(%) 19.00 Date, Time Inflow OutFlow ∆t H Time K Qout / Qin Qin Qout (sec)(cm)(min)(cm/sec) 9:05 0.0 24.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 9:06 2.7 21.5 60.0 18.8 1.0 1.03E-04 0.9 13.5 12.5 9:07 5.2 19.0 60.0 13.8 2.0 1.03E-04 1.0 12.5 12.5 9:08 7.5 16.5 60.0 9.0 3.0 1.03E-04 1.1 11.5 12.5 9:09 9.8 14.2 60.0 4.4 4.0 1.03E-04 1.0 11.5 11.5 9:10 12.0 12.0 60.0 0.0 5.0 1.02E-04 1.0 11 11 9:11 14.0 10.0 60.0 -4.0 6.0 9.63E-05 1.0 10 10 9:12 15.8 8.0 60.0 -7.8 7.0 9.48E-05 1.1 9 10 9:13 17.8 6.0 60.0 -11.8 8.0 1.04E-04 1.0 10 10 9:14 19.5 4.2 60.0 -15.3 9.0 9.41E-05 1.1 8.5 9 9:15 21.0 2.5 60.0 -18.5 10.0 8.90E-05 1.1 7.5 8.5 9:16 22.8 1.0 60.0 -21.8 11.0 9.50E-05 0.8 9 7.5 9:18 0.0 24.5 120.0 24.5 13.0 9:19 2.8 21.5 60.0 18.7 14.0 1.15E-04 1.1 14 15 9:20 5.6 19.0 60.0 13.4 15.0 1.10E-04 0.9 14 12.5 9:21 7.6 16.4 60.0 8.8 16.0 9.90E-05 1.3 10 13 9:22 10.0 14.0 60.0 4.0 17.0 1.07E-04 1.0 12 12 9:23 12.2 11.8 60.0 -0.4 18.0 1.02E-04 1.0 11 11 9:24 14.6 9.5 60.0 -5.1 19.0 1.14E-04 1.0 12 11.5 9:25 16.7 7.6 60.0 -9.1 20.0 1.01E-04 0.9 10.5 9.5 9:26 18.0 5.6 60.0 -12.4 21.0 8.62E-05 1.5 6.5 10 9:27 19.9 4.1 60.0 -15.8 22.0 9.19E-05 0.8 9.5 7.5 9:28 21.6 2.0 60.0 -19.6 23.0 1.07E-04 1.2 8.5 10.5 9:29 23.3 0.4 60.0 -22.9 24.0 9.62E-05 0.9 8.5 8 K (cm/s) =9.5E-05 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Test ASTM D 5084 Sample I.D. E3_(A1/A2)7/17/12 ( ) ( ) ( )  ∆ ∆ ∆+= 2 1 * * H HLntA L aa aaK outin outins Test Date : Cell Pressure =35.8 psi Diameter of Sample, D = 15.2 cm Inflow Pressure = 31.6 psi Length of Sample, L = 11.6 cm Outflow Pressre =30.0 psi Area of Sample, A = 182.41 cm2 Pressure Difference =1.6 psi Sample Volume, V =2123.9 cm3 Effective Stress = 5.0 psi ain = 5 cm2 Hydraulic Gradient, i =10 aout = 5 cm2 Weight of wet sample =4018.9 (g)Sample Water Content =8.5 (%) Wet Density =1.9 g/cm3 Dry Density =1.74 g/cm3 Can #WT of Can WT of Can + Wet Soil WT of Can + Dry Soil Water Content (g)(g)(g)(%) 8.50 Date, Time Inflow OutFlow ∆t H Time K Qout / Qin Qin Qout (sec)(cm)(min)(cm/sec) 10:00:00 0.0 24.5 0.0 24.5 0.0 10:00:10 6.4 18.0 10.0 11.6 0.2 1.58E-03 1.0 32 32.5 10:00:20 11.6 12.5 10.0 0.9 0.3 1.44E-03 1.1 26 27.5 10:00:30 16.4 7.5 10.0 -8.9 0.5 1.44E-03 1.0 24 25 10:00:40 20.6 3.0 10.0 -17.6 0.7 1.40E-03 1.1 21 22.5 10:03:00 0.0 24.5 140.0 24.5 3.0 10:03:10 6.2 18.0 10.0 11.8 3.2 1.55E-03 1.0 31 32.5 10:03:20 11.4 12.6 10.0 1.2 3.3 1.42E-03 1.0 26 27 10:03:30 16.2 7.6 10.0 -8.6 3.5 1.44E-03 1.0 24 25 10:03:40 20.6 2.9 10.0 -17.7 3.7 1.46E-03 1.1 22 23.5 10:07:00 0.0 24.6 200.0 24.6 7.0 -103 10:07:10 5.9 18.7 10.0 12.8 7.2 1.44E-03 1.0 29.5 29.5 10:07:20 11.2 12.9 10.0 1.7 7.3 1.48E-03 1.1 26.5 29 10:07:30 15.9 7.8 10.0 -8.1 7.5 1.43E-03 1.1 23.5 25.5 10:07:40 20.5 3.2 10.0 -17.3 7.7 1.47E-03 1.0 23 23 10:11:00 0.0 24.6 200.0 24.6 11.0 10:11:10 5.8 18.7 10.0 12.9 11.2 1.42E-03 1.0 29 29.5 10:11:20 11.0 13.0 10.0 2.0 11.3 1.45E-03 1.1 26 28.5 10:11:30 15.9 8.0 10.0 -7.9 11.5 1.44E-03 1.0 24.5 25 10:11:40 20.4 3.3 10.0 -17.1 11.7 1.47E-03 1.0 22.5 23.5 10:15:00 0.0 24.5 200.0 24.5 15.0 10:15:10 5.9 18.5 10.0 12.6 15.2 1.45E-03 1.0 29.5 30 10:15:20 11.0 12.9 10.0 1.9 15.3 1.43E-03 1.1 25.5 28 10:15:30 16.0 7.9 10.0 -8.1 15.5 1.46E-03 1.0 25 25 10:15:40 20.5 3.0 10.0 -17.5 15.7 1.51E-03 1.1 22.5 24.5 10:20:00 0.0 24.7 260.0 24.7 20.0 10:20:10 6.0 18.8 10.0 12.8 20.2 1.45E-03 1.0 30 29.5 10:20:20 11.5 13.2 10.0 1.7 20.3 1.48E-03 1.0 27.5 28 10:20:30 16.3 8.0 10.0 -8.3 20.5 1.46E-03 1.1 24 26 10:20:40 20.8 3.3 10.0 -17.5 20.7 1.47E-03 1.0 22.5 23.5 K (cm/s) =1.5E-03 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Test ASTM D 5084 Sample I.D. W2_(B1/B2)7/17/12 ( ) ( ) ( )  ∆ ∆ ∆+= 2 1 * * H HLntA L aa aaK outin outins Test Date : Cell Pressure =35.8 psi Diameter of Sample, D = 15.2 cm Inflow Pressure = 31.6 psi Length of Sample, L = 11.6 cm Outflow Pressre =30.0 psi Area of Sample, A = 182.41 cm2 Pressure Difference =1.6 psi Sample Volume, V =2123.9 cm3 Effective Stress = 5.0 psi ain = 5 cm2 Hydraulic Gradient, i =10 aout = 5 cm2 Weight of wet sample =3878.3 (g)Sample Water Content =10.0 (%) Wet Density =1.8 g/cm3 Dry Density =1.66 g/cm3 Can #WT of Can WT of Can + Wet Soil WT of Can + Dry Soil Water Content (g)(g)(g)(%) 10.00 Date, Time Inflow OutFlow ∆t H Time K Qout / Qin Qin Qout (sec)(cm)(min)(cm/sec) 10:56:00 0.0 24.2 0.0 24.2 0.0 10:56:10 5.4 18.8 10.0 13.4 0.2 1.31E-03 1.0 27 27 10:56:20 9.4 14.8 10.0 5.4 0.3 1.05E-03 1.0 20 20 10:56:30 12.9 11.2 10.0 -1.7 0.5 9.91E-04 1.0 17.5 18 10:56:40 16.4 7.8 10.0 -8.6 0.7 1.03E-03 1.0 17.5 17 10:56:50 19.6 4.6 10.0 -15.0 0.8 1.01E-03 1.0 16 16 10:57:00 22.3 1.8 10.0 -20.5 1.0 9.26E-04 1.0 13.5 14 11:00:00 0.0 24.2 180.0 24.2 4.0 11:00:10 5.0 19.2 10.0 14.2 4.2 1.21E-03 1.0 25 25 11:00:20 9.0 15.0 10.0 6.0 4.3 1.07E-03 1.1 20 21 11:00:30 13.0 11.2 10.0 -1.8 4.5 1.09E-03 1.0 20 19 11:00:40 16.5 7.7 10.0 -8.8 4.7 1.04E-03 1.0 17.5 17.5 11:00:50 19.7 4.4 10.0 -15.3 4.8 1.03E-03 1.0 16 16.5 11:01:00 22.8 1.4 10.0 -21.4 5.0 1.03E-03 1.0 15.5 15 11:05:00 0.0 24.5 240.0 24.5 9.0 11:05:10 4.7 19.8 10.0 15.1 9.2 1.13E-03 1.0 23.5 23.5 11:05:20 8.9 15.6 10.0 6.7 9.3 1.09E-03 1.0 21 21 11:05:30 12.8 11.6 10.0 -1.2 9.5 1.09E-03 1.0 19.5 20 11:05:40 16.6 8.0 10.0 -8.6 9.7 1.10E-03 0.9 19 18 11:05:50 19.7 4.8 10.0 -14.9 9.8 9.98E-04 1.0 15.5 16 11:06:00 22.7 1.8 10.0 -20.9 10.0 1.01E-03 1.0 15 15 11:12:00 0.0 24.5 360.0 24.5 16.0 11:12:10 4.8 19.8 10.0 15.0 16.2 1.15E-03 1.0 24 23.5 11:12:20 8.9 15.5 10.0 6.6 16.3 1.09E-03 1.0 20.5 21.5 11:12:30 12.8 11.6 10.0 -1.2 16.5 1.08E-03 1.0 19.5 19.5 11:12:40 16.3 8.1 10.0 -8.2 16.7 1.04E-03 1.0 17.5 17.5 11:12:50 19.6 4.8 10.0 -14.8 16.8 1.04E-03 1.0 16.5 16.5 11:13:00 22.6 1.8 10.0 -20.8 17.0 1.01E-03 1.0 15 15 11:17:00 0.0 24.5 240.0 24.5 21.0 11:17:10 4.7 19.7 10.0 15.0 21.2 1.15E-03 1.0 23.5 24 11:17:20 8.9 16.5 10.0 7.6 21.3 9.54E-04 0.8 21 16 11:17:30 12.9 11.6 10.0 -1.3 21.5 1.23E-03 1.2 20 24.5 11:17:40 16.5 8.0 10.0 -8.5 21.7 1.07E-03 1.0 18 18 11:17:50 19.8 4.7 10.0 -15.1 21.8 1.05E-03 1.0 16.5 16.5 11:18:00 22.7 1.7 10.0 -21.0 22.0 9.97E-04 1.0 14.5 15 K (cm/s) =1.1E-03 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Test ASTM D 5084 Sample I.D. W5_(B1/B2)7/17/12 ( ) ( ) ( )  ∆ ∆ ∆+= 2 1 * * H HLntA L aa aaK outin outins Test Date : Cell Pressure =35.8 psi Diameter of Sample, D = 15.2 cm Inflow Pressure = 31.6 psi Length of Sample, L = 11.6 cm Outflow Pressre =30.0 psi Area of Sample, A = 182.41 cm2 Pressure Difference =1.6 psi Sample Volume, V =2123.9 cm3 Effective Stress = 5.0 psi ain = 5 cm2 Hydraulic Gradient, i =10 aout = 5 cm2 Weight of wet sample =3823.8 (g)Sample Water Content =13.0 (%) Wet Density =1.8 g/cm3 Dry Density =1.59 g/cm3 Can #WT of Can WT of Can + Wet Soil WT of Can + Dry Soil Water Content (g)(g)(g)(%) 13.00 Date, Time Inflow OutFlow ∆t H Time K Qout / Qin Qin Qout (sec)(cm)(min)(cm/sec) 11:41:00 0.0 24.5 0.0 24.5 0.0 11:41:10 5.3 19.6 10.0 14.3 0.2 1.23E-03 0.9 26.5 24.5 11:41:20 10.0 14.8 10.0 4.8 0.3 1.24E-03 1.0 23.5 24 11:41:30 14.4 10.5 10.0 -3.9 0.5 1.23E-03 1.0 22 21.5 11:41:40 18.3 6.4 10.0 -11.9 0.7 1.22E-03 1.1 19.5 20.5 11:41:50 21.8 3.0 10.0 -18.8 0.8 1.13E-03 1.0 17.5 17 11:45:00 0.0 24.0 190.0 24.0 4.0 11:45:10 4.9 19.0 10.0 14.1 4.2 1.20E-03 1.0 24.5 25 11:45:20 9.5 14.3 10.0 4.8 4.3 1.22E-03 1.0 23 23.5 11:45:30 13.8 10.0 10.0 -3.8 4.5 1.21E-03 1.0 21.5 21.5 11:45:40 17.6 6.1 10.0 -11.5 4.7 1.17E-03 1.0 19 19.5 11:45:50 21.0 2.7 10.0 -18.3 4.8 1.11E-03 1.0 17 17 11:48:00 0.0 24.0 130.0 24.0 7.0 11:48:10 4.9 19.0 10.0 14.1 7.2 1.20E-03 1.0 24.5 25 11:48:20 9.4 15.5 10.0 6.1 7.3 1.04E-03 0.8 22.5 17.5 11:48:30 13.5 10.3 10.0 -3.2 7.5 1.30E-03 1.3 20.5 26 11:48:40 17.4 6.4 10.0 -11.0 7.7 1.18E-03 1.0 19.5 19.5 11:48:50 20.9 2.9 10.0 -18.0 7.8 1.14E-03 1.0 17.5 17.5 11:55:00 0.0 24.5 370.0 24.5 14.0 11:55:10 4.9 19.5 10.0 14.6 14.2 1.20E-03 1.0 24.5 25 11:55:20 9.5 14.9 10.0 5.4 14.3 1.20E-03 1.0 23 23 11:55:30 13.6 10.8 10.0 -2.8 14.5 1.15E-03 1.0 20.5 20.5 11:55:40 17.4 7.0 10.0 -10.4 14.7 1.15E-03 1.0 19 19 11:55:50 20.9 3.4 10.0 -17.5 14.8 1.15E-03 1.0 17.5 18 12:00:00 0.0 24.5 250.0 24.5 19.0 12:00:10 4.9 19.5 10.0 14.6 19.2 1.20E-03 1.0 24.5 25 12:00:20 9.2 14.9 10.0 5.7 19.3 1.16E-03 1.1 21.5 23 12:00:30 13.3 11.0 10.0 -2.3 19.5 1.12E-03 1.0 20.5 19.5 12:00:40 17.2 6.9 10.0 -10.3 19.7 1.20E-03 1.1 19.5 20.5 12:00:50 20.9 3.3 10.0 -17.6 19.8 1.18E-03 1.0 18.5 18 K (cm/s) =1.2E-03 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Test ASTM D 5084 Sample I.D. W8_(A1/A2)7/17/12 ( ) ( ) ( )  ∆ ∆ ∆+= 2 1 * * H HLntA L aa aaK outin outins Test Date : Cell Pressure =35.8 psi Diameter of Sample, D = 15.2 cm Inflow Pressure = 31.6 psi Length of Sample, L = 11.6 cm Outflow Pressre =30.0 psi Area of Sample, A = 182.41 cm2 Pressure Difference =1.6 psi Sample Volume, V =2123.9 cm3 Effective Stress = 5.0 psi ain = 5 cm2 Hydraulic Gradient, i =10 aout = 5 cm2 Weight of wet sample =3792.1 (g)Sample Water Content =14.0 (%) Wet Density =1.8 g/cm3 Dry Density =1.57 g/cm3 Can #WT of Can WT of Can + Wet Soil WT of Can + Dry Soil Water Content (g)(g)(g)(%) 14.00 Date, Time Inflow OutFlow ∆t H Time K Qout / Qin Qin Qout (sec)(cm)(min)(cm/sec) 13:01:00 0.0 24.0 0.0 24.0 0.0 13:01:10 1.8 22.6 10.0 20.8 0.2 3.78E-04 0.8 9 7 13:01:20 3.4 21.0 10.0 17.6 0.3 3.88E-04 1.0 8 8 13:01:30 5.0 19.6 10.0 14.6 0.5 3.72E-04 0.9 8 7 13:01:40 6.5 18.0 10.0 11.5 0.7 3.94E-04 1.1 7.5 8 13:01:50 8.0 16.6 10.0 8.6 0.8 3.78E-04 0.9 7.5 7 13:02:00 9.4 15.1 10.0 5.7 1.0 3.87E-04 1.1 7 7.5 13:02:10 10.9 13.8 10.0 2.9 1.2 3.82E-04 0.9 7.5 6.5 13:02:20 12.2 12.4 10.0 0.2 1.3 3.78E-04 1.1 6.5 7 13:02:30 13.6 11.0 10.0 -2.6 1.5 4.01E-04 1.0 7 7 13:02:40 14.9 9.8 10.0 -5.1 1.7 3.67E-04 0.9 6.5 6 13:02:50 16.2 8.5 10.0 -7.7 1.8 3.91E-04 1.0 6.5 6.5 13:03:00 17.5 7.2 10.0 -10.3 2.0 4.01E-04 1.0 6.5 6.5 13:03:10 18.8 6.0 10.0 -12.8 2.2 3.95E-04 0.9 6.5 6 13:03:20 20.0 4.9 10.0 -15.1 2.3 3.72E-04 0.9 6 5.5 13:03:30 21.0 3.8 10.0 -17.2 2.5 3.48E-04 1.1 5 5.5 13:03:40 22.3 2.6 10.0 -19.7 2.7 4.24E-04 0.9 6.5 6 13:03:50 23.6 1.5 10.0 -22.1 2.8 4.18E-04 0.8 6.5 5.5 13:07:00 0.0 24.0 190.0 24.0 6.0 13:07:20 3.6 20.5 20.0 16.9 6.3 4.26E-04 1.0 18 17.5 13:07:40 6.9 17.1 20.0 10.2 6.7 4.24E-04 1.0 16.5 17 13:08:00 9.9 14.3 20.0 4.4 7.0 3.86E-04 0.9 15 14 13:08:20 12.8 11.6 20.0 -1.2 7.3 3.92E-04 0.9 14.5 13.5 13:08:40 15.4 8.8 20.0 -6.6 7.7 3.97E-04 1.1 13 14 13:09:00 18.0 6.3 20.0 -11.7 8.0 3.94E-04 1.0 13 12.5 13:09:20 20.5 3.8 20.0 -16.7 8.3 4.06E-04 1.0 12.5 12.5 13:09:40 23.0 1.6 20.0 -21.4 8.7 4.01E-04 0.9 12.5 11 13:13:00 0.0 24.0 200.0 24.0 12.0 13:13:30 5.0 19.0 30.0 14.0 12.5 4.05E-04 1.0 25 25 13:14:00 9.7 14.3 30.0 4.6 13.0 4.11E-04 1.0 23.5 23.5 13:14:30 14.0 10.0 30.0 -4.0 13.5 4.06E-04 1.0 21.5 21.5 13:15:00 18.0 6.2 30.0 -11.8 14.0 3.97E-04 1.0 20 19 13:15:30 21.8 2.6 30.0 -19.2 14.5 4.06E-04 0.9 19 18 13:20:00 0.0 24.5 270.0 24.5 19.0 Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory Hydraulic Conductivity Test ASTM D 5084 - 00 Sample I.D. W9_(B1/B2)7/17/12 ( ) ( ) ( )  ∆ ∆ ∆+= 2 1 * * H HLntA L aa aaK outin outins 13:20:20 3.5 21.0 20.0 17.5 19.3 4.18E-04 1.0 17.5 17.5 13:20:40 6.7 17.8 20.0 11.1 19.7 4.03E-04 1.0 16 16 13:21:00 9.9 14.7 20.0 4.8 20.0 4.17E-04 1.0 16 15.5 13:21:20 12.9 11.8 20.0 -1.1 20.3 4.12E-04 1.0 15 14.5 13:21:40 15.7 9.2 20.0 -6.5 20.7 3.96E-04 0.9 14 13 13:22:00 18.3 6.6 20.0 -11.7 21.0 4.01E-04 1.0 13 13 13:22:20 20.9 4.0 20.0 -16.9 21.3 4.22E-04 1.0 13 13 K (cm/s) =4.1E-04 Sample I.D.Test Date 70.9 g Gs =2.61 6/16/2012 100.3 pcf 11.0 % 7.26 cm 2.54 cm 105.27 cm3 After Saturation, Sample Height Swell -0.02 cm After Saturation, Sample Dry Density 1.62 (g/cm3) 23.4 % 37.92 % Gravimetric Volumetric Water Water Content Content (psi)(kPa) 0 0.001 0.234 0.379 0.25 1.724 0.235 0.381 0.5 3.449 0.234 0.379 1 6.897 0.230 0.372 2 13.794 0.207 0.335 4 27.588 0.148 0.240 8 55.176 0.130 0.211 15 103.455 0.117 0.189 30 206.910 0.108 0.175 61 420.717 0.104 0.168 0.000 0.239 0.386 0.000 0.239 0.386 Activity 360.00 0.066 0.106 Meter 4090.00 0.042 0.068 Test 49640.00 0.022 0.035 Activity Meter Test Wt of Can Wt of Can Gravimetric Volumetric ++ Water Water Wet Soil Dry Soil Content Content (Mpa)(g)(g)(g) 49.64 7.6704 15.1835 15.0238 0.022 0.035 4.09 7.7126 15.3462 15.037 0.042 0.068 0.36 8.0127 15.8145 15.3346 0.066 0.106 Sample Volume, V = Applied Pressure Reading 4.1 8 116 96.5 108.5 28.4 80.5 Suction Wt of Can 120 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison (cm) 4 3.2 Pressure Plate Extractor Test ASTM D 6836 - 02 (Method B) E1_(A1/A2) WT of Sample Ring = Provided Water Content, w = Diameter of Sample Ring, D = Suction Provided Dry Density, γd = Height of Sample Ring, L = Saturaded Water Content, w = Saturaded Water Content, θ = 0.001 0.379 0.3792 0.000 0.000 1.72 0.381 0.3731 0.008 0.000 3.45 0.379 0.3646 0.014 0.000 θr =0.0236 6.90 0.372 0.3468 0.025 0.001 θs =0.3792 13.79 0.335 0.3157 0.019 0.000 α =0.0797 27.59 0.240 0.2736 -0.034 0.001 n =1.3495 55.18 0.211 0.2287 -0.018 0.000 m =0.2590 103.46 0.189 0.1913 -0.002 0.000 206.91 0.175 0.1563 0.019 0.000 420.72 0.168 0.1276 0.041 0.002 360.00 0.106 0.1333 -0.027 0.001 4090.00 0.068 0.0707 -0.002 0.000 0.001 0.3792 49640.00 0.035 0.0433 -0.008 0.000 0.025 0.3791 0.05 0.3791 Residual =0.000425339 0.075 0.3791 0.1 0.3790 press plate data (FROM PAGE 2) 0.15 0.3789 water activity meter data (FROM PAGE 2) 0.25 0.3787 0.5 0.3780 0.75 0.3771 1 0.3762 1.25 0.3752 1.5 0.3741 2 0.3718 3 0.3669 4 0.3618 5 0.3566 6 0.3514 7 0.3463 8 0.3413 9 0.3365 10 0.3318 15 0.3111 20 0.2941 30 0.2682 40 0.2494 50 0.2349 60 0.2234 70 0.2139 80 0.2060 90 0.1991 100 0.1931 500 0.1215 1000 0.1005 5000 0.0675 10000 0.0580 25000 0.0486 5.00E+04 0.0432 1.00E+05 0.0390 van Genuchten Eqn Fit van Genuchten Eqn to SWCC Data FOR GRAPHING Suction (kPa)VWC FOR FITTING (∆WC)2∆WC (%)Predicted VWC Applied Suction (kPa) Measured VWC ( ) m nrs r 1 1    αψ+=θ−θ θ−θ=Θ 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Su c t i o n ( k P a ) Fitted Data Pressure Plate Test Activity Meter Sample I.D.Test Date 6/16/2012 69.2 g Gs =2.53 89.25 pcf 19.0 % 7.26 cm 2.54 cm 105.27 cm3 After Saturation, Sample Height Swell 0.02 cm After Saturation, Sample Dry Density 1.42 (g/cm3) 31.0 % 43.90 % Gravimetric Volumetric Water Water Content Content (psi)(kPa) 0 0.001 0.310 0.439 0.25 1.724 0.308 0.436 0.5 3.449 0.306 0.434 1 6.897 0.304 0.431 2 13.794 0.273 0.387 4 27.588 0.248 0.352 10 68.970 0.219 0.310 20 137.940 0.190 0.269 40 275.880 0.174 0.247 82 565.554 0.163 0.231 0.000 0.324 0.459 0.000 0.324 0.459 Activity 4130.00 0.107 0.152 Meter 9560.00 0.087 0.123 Test 36450.00 0.067 0.096 Activity Meter Test Wt of Can Wt of Can Gravimetric Volumetric ++ Water Water Wet Soil Dry Soil Content Content (Mpa)(g)(g)(g) 36.45 7.7599 14.4494 14.0272 0.067 0.096 9.56 7.7453 14.5806 14.0358 0.087 0.123 4.13 7.5893 14.5888 13.9098 0.107 0.152 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison (cm) 11.1 12.7 Pressure Plate Extractor Test ASTM D 6836 - 02 (Method B) E3_(A1/A2) WT of Sample Ring = Provided Water Content, w = Diameter of Sample Ring, D = Suction Provided Dry Density, γd = Height of Sample Ring, L = Saturaded Water Content, w = Saturaded Water Content, θ = Suction Wt of Can 127.5 118.5 83 106 40.4 59.5 Sample Volume, V = Applied Pressure Reading 14 15.5 0.001 0.439 0.4390 0.000 0.000 1.72 0.436 0.4329 0.003 0.000 3.45 0.434 0.4259 0.008 0.000 θr =0.0000 6.90 0.431 0.4126 0.019 0.000 θs =0.4390 13.79 0.387 0.3905 -0.004 0.000 α =0.0787 27.59 0.352 0.3602 -0.008 0.000 n =1.1870 68.97 0.310 0.3137 -0.003 0.000 m =0.1575 137.94 0.269 0.2786 -0.009 0.000 275.88 0.247 0.2459 0.001 0.000 565.55 0.231 0.2155 0.015 0.000 4130.00 0.152 0.1489 0.003 0.000 9560.00 0.123 0.1273 -0.004 0.000 0.001 0.4390 36450.00 0.096 0.0991 -0.004 0.000 0.025 0.4390 0.05 0.4389 Residual =6.70081E-05 0.075 0.4389 0.1 0.4388 press plate data (FROM PAGE 2) 0.15 0.4387 water activity meter data (FROM PAGE 2) 0.25 0.4384 0.5 0.4376 0.75 0.4367 1 0.4358 1.25 0.4348 1.5 0.4338 2 0.4318 3 0.4277 4 0.4237 5 0.4197 6 0.4159 7 0.4122 8 0.4086 9 0.4052 10 0.4019 15 0.3873 20 0.3752 30 0.3562 40 0.3418 50 0.3303 60 0.3209 70 0.3129 80 0.3061 90 0.3000 100 0.2946 500 0.2205 1000 0.1939 5000 0.1436 10000 0.1262 25000 0.1063 5.00E+04 0.0934 1.00E+05 0.0821 van Genuchten Eqn Fit van Genuchten Eqn to SWCC Data FOR GRAPHING Suction (kPa)VWC FOR FITTING (∆WC)2∆WC (%)Predicted VWC Applied Suction (kPa) Measured VWC ( ) m nrs r 1 1    αψ+=θ−θ θ−θ=Θ 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Su c t i o n ( k P a ) Fitted Data Pressure Plate Test Activity Meter Sample I.D.Test Date 200 cm3 Gs =2.63 Solid WT =348.5 g Water WT = 67 g 1.74 g/cm3 108.78 pcf 19.3 % 0.19 cm2 Left Manometer Reading Right Manometer Reading Horizontal Outflow Reading Water Expelled from Soil Sample Suction Grav. Water Content Volumetric Water Content (cm)(cm)(cm)(mL)(cm) 199 199 2.5 0.000 0.19 0.34 201 197.7 24 4.085 3.300 0.18 0.32 202.8 195.7 31 5.415 7.100 0.18 0.31 206.1 192.4 38 6.745 13.700 0.17 0.30 209.4 189.1 42 7.505 20.300 0.17 0.30 213.5 185 46.6 8.379 28.500 0.17 0.30 216.5 182 52.4 9.481 34.500 0.17 0.29 221 177.5 59 10.735 43.500 0.16 0.28 225 173.1 72 13.205 51.900 0.16 0.27 229 168.5 79.3 14.592 60.500 0.15 0.26 235.2 163.1 96 17.765 72.100 0.14 0.25 248 150 119.4 22.211 98.000 0.13 0.23 257.5 140.8 131 24.415 116.700 0.12 0.21 266.5 131.5 144.5 26.980 135.000 0.12 0.20 287.5 110.5 163.5 30.590 177.000 0.11 0.18 317.5 81 176 32.965 236.500 0.10 0.17 391.5 6.5 200 37.525 385.000 0.09 0.15 -0.475 0.000 0.19 0.34 -0.475 0.000 0.19 0.34 2448.00 0.059 0.104 1.0 MPa = 1000.0 kPa Activity 11424.00 0.037 0.065 1.0 kPa = 10.2 cm Meter 264588.00 0.014 0.025 Test Activity Meter Test Suction Wt of Can Wt of Can + Wet Soil Wt of Can + Dry Soil Gravimetric Water Content Volumetric Water Content (Mpa)(g)(g)(g) 25.94 7.6398 15.8339 15.719 0.014 0.025 1.12 7.8975 16.1932 15.8943 0.037 0.065 0.24 8.0743 16.5516 16.0763 0.059 0.104 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Tube Area, A = Volume, V = Dry Unit Weight = Hanging Column and Activity Meter Test ASTM D 6836 - 02 (Method A and D) W2_(B1/B2) Saturated Water Content = 0.001 0.337 0.3166 0.020 0.000 3.30 0.317 0.3143 0.002 0.000 7.10 0.310 0.3104 -0.001 0.000 θr =0.0000 13.70 0.303 0.3029 0.000 0.000 θs =0.3166 20.30 0.299 0.2950 0.004 0.000 α =0.0216 28.50 0.295 0.2856 0.009 0.000 n =1.3212 34.50 0.290 0.2792 0.010 0.000 m =0.2431 43.50 0.283 0.2701 0.013 0.000 51.90 0.271 0.2625 0.009 0.000 60.50 0.264 0.2553 0.009 0.000 72.10 0.248 0.2466 0.002 0.000 98.00 0.226 0.2304 -0.004 0.000 0.001 0.3166 116.70 0.215 0.2209 -0.006 0.000 0.025 0.3166 135.00 0.202 0.2129 -0.011 0.000 0.05 0.3166 177.00 0.184 0.1981 -0.014 0.000 0.075 0.3166 236.50 0.172 0.1826 -0.010 0.000 0.1 0.3166 385.00 0.149 0.1581 -0.009 0.000 0.15 0.3166 2448.00 0.104 0.0884 0.015 0.000 0.25 0.3165 11424.00 0.065 0.0540 0.011 0.000 0.5 0.3164 264588.00 0.025 0.0197 0.005 0.000 0.75 0.3163 Residual =9.49943E-05 1 0.3161 1.25 0.3159 press plate data (FROM PAGE 2) 1.5 0.3158 water activity meter data (FROM PAGE 2) 2 0.3154 3 0.3146 4 0.3136 5 0.3127 6 0.3116 7 0.3106 8 0.3095 9 0.3083 10 0.3072 15 0.3013 20 0.2954 25 0.2896 30 0.2840 35 0.2786 40 0.2735 45 0.2687 50 0.2641 55 0.2598 60 0.2557 62 0.2541 65 0.2518 67 0.2503 70 0.2481 75 0.2446 80 0.2412 Measured VWC van Genuchten Eqn Fit van Genuchten Eqn to SWCC Data FOR GRAPHING Suction (cm)VWC FOR FITTING (∆WC)2∆WC (%)Predicted VWC Applied Suction (cm) ( ) m nrs r 1 1    αψ+=θ−θ θ−θ=Θ 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Su c t i o n ( c m ) Volumetric Water Content Fitted and Lab Data Fitted Data Hanging Column Activity Meter Sample I.D.Test Date 200 cm3 Gs =2.63 Solid WT =332.2 g Water WT = 74 g 1.661 g/cm3 103.7 pcf 22 % 0.19 cm2 Left Manometer Reading Right Manometer Reading Horizontal Outflow Reading Water Expelled from Soil Sample Suction Grav. Water Content Volumetric Water Content (cm)(cm)(cm)(mL)(cm) 198.5 198.5 2.8 0.000 0.22 0.37 201 197.2 13 1.938 3.800 0.22 0.36 202.6 195.4 20.8 3.420 7.200 0.21 0.35 205.7 192.1 28.7 4.921 13.600 0.21 0.34 209 189 34.2 5.966 20.000 0.20 0.34 213.2 184.6 39.3 6.935 28.600 0.20 0.33 216.3 181.4 41.5 7.353 34.900 0.20 0.33 221.8 175.8 42.5 7.543 46.000 0.20 0.33 227.5 170 47.5 8.493 57.500 0.20 0.33 232.3 165.2 52.6 9.462 67.100 0.19 0.32 237.6 159.7 67 12.198 77.900 0.18 0.31 249.5 148 80.5 14.763 101.500 0.18 0.29 256 141 86 15.808 115.000 0.17 0.29 265 132 99 18.278 133.000 0.17 0.28 281.8 115 124 23.028 166.800 0.15 0.25 314.5 81.5 150 27.968 233.000 0.14 0.23 388 8 188 35.188 380.000 0.12 0.19 -0.532 0.000 0.22 0.37 -0.532 0.000 0.22 0.37 4794.00 0.057 0.095 1.0 MPa = 1000.0 kPa Activity 17544.00 0.035 0.058 1.0 kPa = 10.2 cm Meter 320280.00 0.013 0.022 Test Activity Meter Test Suction Wt of Can Wt of Can + Wet Soil Wt of Can + Dry Soil Gravimetric Water Content Volumetric Water Content (Mpa)(g)(g)(g) 31.4 7.7689 15.4851 15.3826 0.013 0.022 1.72 7.6668 15.5828 15.3142 0.035 0.058 0.47 7.6092 15.7261 15.2859 0.057 0.095 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Tube Area, A = Volume, V = Dry Unit Weight = Hanging Column and Activity Meter Test ASTM D 6836 - 02 (Method A and D) W5_(B1/B2) Saturated Water Content = 0.001 0.368 0.3583 0.010 0.000 3.80 0.358 0.3569 0.001 0.000 7.20 0.351 0.3550 -0.004 0.000 θr =0.0000 13.60 0.343 0.3508 -0.007 0.000 θs =0.3583 20.00 0.338 0.3461 -0.008 0.000 α =0.0118 28.60 0.333 0.3395 -0.006 0.000 n =1.3487 34.90 0.331 0.3346 -0.003 0.000 m =0.2586 46.00 0.330 0.3260 0.004 0.000 57.50 0.326 0.3175 0.008 0.000 67.10 0.321 0.3108 0.010 0.000 77.90 0.307 0.3036 0.003 0.000 101.50 0.294 0.2895 0.005 0.000 0.001 0.3583 115.00 0.289 0.2822 0.007 0.000 0.025 0.3583 133.00 0.277 0.2734 0.003 0.000 0.05 0.3583 166.80 0.253 0.2591 -0.006 0.000 0.075 0.3583 233.00 0.228 0.2372 -0.009 0.000 0.1 0.3583 380.00 0.192 0.2054 -0.013 0.000 0.15 0.3583 4794.00 0.095 0.0875 0.008 0.000 0.25 0.3583 17544.00 0.058 0.0557 0.003 0.000 0.5 0.3582 320280.00 0.022 0.0202 0.002 0.000 0.75 0.3582 Residual =4.58839E-05 1 0.3581 1.25 0.3580 press plate data (FROM PAGE 2) 1.5 0.3579 water activity meter data (FROM PAGE 2) 2 0.3577 3 0.3573 4 0.3568 5 0.3563 6 0.3557 7 0.3552 8 0.3546 9 0.3539 10 0.3533 15 0.3498 20 0.3461 25 0.3423 30 0.3384 35 0.3345 40 0.3306 45 0.3268 50 0.3230 55 0.3193 60 0.3157 62 0.3143 65 0.3122 67 0.3109 70 0.3088 75 0.3055 80 0.3023 Measured VWC van Genuchten Eqn Fit van Genuchten Eqn to SWCC Data FOR GRAPHING Suction (cm)VWC FOR FITTING (∆WC)2∆WC (%)Predicted VWC Applied Suction (cm) ( ) m nrs r 1 1    αψ+=θ−θ θ−θ=Θ 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Su c t i o n ( c m ) Volumetric Water Content Fitted and Lab Data Fitted Data Hanging Column Activity Meter Sample I.D.Test Date 200 cm3 Gs =2.64 Solid WT =318.5 g Water WT = 79 g 1.59 g/cm3 99.41 pcf 25 % 0.19 cm2 Left Manometer Reading Right Manometer Reading Horizontal Outflow Reading Water Expelled from Soil Sample Suction Grav. Water Content Volumetric Water Content (cm)(cm)(cm)(mL)(cm) 198.3 198.3 0.8 0.000 0.25 0.40 200 197 24.5 4.503 3.000 0.23 0.37 202 195 30.4 5.624 7.000 0.23 0.37 205 191.8 35.6 6.612 13.200 0.23 0.36 208.3 188.5 38.9 7.239 19.800 0.23 0.36 212 184.8 41.9 7.809 27.200 0.22 0.36 215.4 181.1 43.5 8.113 34.300 0.22 0.36 220.4 176.3 50 9.348 44.100 0.22 0.35 223.7 173 66.1 12.407 50.700 0.21 0.33 228.6 168 79 14.858 60.600 0.20 0.32 233.3 163.4 102.3 19.285 69.900 0.19 0.30 240.5 156 124 23.408 84.500 0.18 0.28 247.3 149.5 139 26.258 97.800 0.17 0.27 257 139.5 160 30.248 117.500 0.15 0.25 276.5 120.5 185 34.998 156.000 0.14 0.22 309.2 88 206 38.988 221.200 0.13 0.20 381 17 233 44.118 364.000 0.11 0.18 -0.152 0.000 0.25 0.40 -0.152 0.000 0.25 0.40 11424.00 0.054 0.087 1.0 MPa = 1000.0 kPa Activity 45798.00 0.034 0.054 1.0 kPa = 10.2 cm Meter 500616.00 0.012 0.020 Test Activity Meter Test Suction Wt of Can Wt of Can + Wet Soil Wt of Can + Dry Soil Gravimetric Water Content Volumetric Water Content (Mpa)(g)(g)(g) 49.08 7.9693 15.3475 15.257 0.012 0.020 4.49 10.3871 17.9633 17.7137 0.034 0.054 1.12 8.2429 16.041 15.6388 0.054 0.087 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison Tube Area, A = Volume, V = Dry Unit Weight = Hanging Column and Activity Meter Test ASTM D 6836 - 02 (Method A and D) W8_(A1/A2) Saturated Water Content = 0.001 0.396 0.3738 0.023 0.001 3.00 0.374 0.3719 0.002 0.000 7.00 0.368 0.3680 0.000 0.000 θr =0.0000 13.20 0.363 0.3607 0.003 0.000 θs =0.3738 19.80 0.360 0.3524 0.008 0.000 α =0.0184 27.20 0.357 0.3430 0.014 0.000 n =1.3531 34.30 0.356 0.3343 0.022 0.000 m =0.2609 44.10 0.350 0.3229 0.027 0.001 50.70 0.334 0.3158 0.018 0.000 60.60 0.322 0.3059 0.016 0.000 69.90 0.300 0.2974 0.003 0.000 84.50 0.279 0.2854 -0.006 0.000 0.001 0.3738 97.80 0.265 0.2757 -0.011 0.000 0.025 0.3738 117.50 0.245 0.2633 -0.018 0.000 0.05 0.3738 156.00 0.221 0.2437 -0.022 0.000 0.075 0.3738 221.20 0.201 0.2197 -0.018 0.000 0.1 0.3738 364.00 0.176 0.1875 -0.012 0.000 0.15 0.3738 11424.00 0.087 0.0566 0.030 0.001 0.25 0.3738 45798.00 0.054 0.0347 0.020 0.000 0.5 0.3737 500616.00 0.020 0.0149 0.005 0.000 0.75 0.3735 Residual =0.000266321 1 0.3734 1.25 0.3732 press plate data (FROM PAGE 2) 1.5 0.3731 water activity meter data (FROM PAGE 2) 2 0.3727 3 0.3719 4 0.3710 5 0.3701 6 0.3690 7 0.3680 8 0.3669 9 0.3657 10 0.3646 15 0.3584 20 0.3521 25 0.3457 30 0.3395 35 0.3334 40 0.3276 45 0.3219 50 0.3166 55 0.3114 60 0.3065 62 0.3046 65 0.3018 67 0.3000 70 0.2973 75 0.2930 80 0.2889 Measured VWC van Genuchten Eqn Fit van Genuchten Eqn to SWCC Data FOR GRAPHING Suction (cm)VWC FOR FITTING (∆WC)2∆WC (%)Predicted VWC Applied Suction (cm) ( ) m nrs r 1 1    αψ+=θ−θ θ−θ=Θ 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Su c t i o n ( c m ) Volumetric Water Content Fitted and Lab Data Fitted Data Hanging Column Activity Meter Sample I.D.Test Date 6/16/2012 71.2 g Gs =2.63 97.75 pcf 14.0 % 7.26 cm 2.54 cm 105.27 cm3 After Saturation, Sample Height Swell -0.01 cm After Saturation, Sample Dry Density 1.57 (g/cm3) 25.5 % 40.15 % Gravimetric Volumetric Water Water Content Content (psi)(kPa) 0 0.001 0.255 0.402 0.25 1.724 0.253 0.398 0.5 3.449 0.253 0.398 1 6.897 0.249 0.392 2 13.794 0.228 0.358 4 27.588 0.185 0.291 8.8 60.694 0.159 0.250 15 103.455 0.147 0.231 30 206.910 0.133 0.208 61 420.717 0.124 0.196 0.000 0.260 0.409 0.000 0.260 0.409 Activity 1900.00 0.068 0.107 Meter 9980.00 0.044 0.070 Test 49420.00 0.023 0.037 Activity Meter Test Wt of Can Wt of Can Gravimetric Volumetric ++ Water Water Wet Soil Dry Soil Content Content (Mpa)(g)(g)(g) 49.42 7.5967 14.8996 14.7337 0.023 0.037 9.98 8.4947 15.9007 15.5857 0.044 0.070 1.9 7.6924 15.3037 14.8201 0.068 0.107 Geotechnics Laboratory University of Wisconsin-Madison (cm) 4 6 Pressure Plate Extractor Test ASTM D 6836 - 02 (Method B) W9_(B1/B2) WT of Sample Ring = Provided Water Content, w = Diameter of Sample Ring, D = Suction Provided Dry Density, γd = Height of Sample Ring, L = Saturaded Water Content, w = Saturaded Water Content, θ = Suction Wt of Can 117.5 110.5 87.5 98.2 28 65 Sample Volume, V = Applied Pressure Reading 6 9.4 0.001 0.402 0.4015 0.000 0.000 1.72 0.398 0.3957 0.002 0.000 3.45 0.398 0.3884 0.009 0.000 θr =0.0000 6.90 0.392 0.3737 0.018 0.000 θs =0.4015 13.79 0.358 0.3482 0.010 0.000 α =0.0729 27.59 0.291 0.3125 -0.022 0.000 n =1.2569 60.69 0.250 0.2661 -0.016 0.000 m =0.2044 103.46 0.231 0.2352 -0.005 0.000 206.91 0.208 0.1986 0.010 0.000 420.72 0.196 0.1662 0.030 0.001 1900.00 0.107 0.1131 -0.006 0.000 9980.00 0.070 0.0739 -0.004 0.000 0.001 0.4015 49420.00 0.037 0.0490 -0.012 0.000 0.025 0.4015 0.05 0.4014 Residual =0.000187613 0.075 0.4014 0.1 0.4013 press plate data (FROM PAGE 2) 0.15 0.4012 water activity meter data (FROM PAGE 2) 0.25 0.4010 0.5 0.4002 0.75 0.3994 1 0.3985 1.25 0.3976 1.5 0.3966 2 0.3946 3 0.3903 4 0.3860 5 0.3817 6 0.3774 7 0.3732 8 0.3692 9 0.3653 10 0.3615 15 0.3444 20 0.3301 30 0.3077 40 0.2909 50 0.2776 60 0.2668 70 0.2577 80 0.2499 90 0.2431 100 0.2371 500 0.1590 1000 0.1333 5000 0.0882 10000 0.0738 25000 0.0583 5.00E+04 0.0488 1.00E+05 0.0409 van Genuchten Eqn Fit van Genuchten Eqn to SWCC Data FOR GRAPHING Suction (kPa)VWC FOR FITTING (∆WC)2∆WC (%)Predicted VWC Applied Suction (kPa) Measured VWC ( ) m nrs r 1 1    αψ+=θ−θ θ−θ=Θ 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Su c t i o n ( k P a ) Volumetric Water Content Fitted Data Pressure Plate Test Activity Meter Sample WT of WT of Wet Soil WT of Dry Soil Water Suction 15 Bar I.D.Moisture Can + Moisture Can + Moisture Can Content (MPa)Moisture Content (G)(g)(g)(%)(See Plots) 7.67 15.7008 15.4575 3.1 13.66 7.7131 15.9538 15.5736 4.8 2.73 8.0119 16.3007 15.8023 6.4 1.14 7.6693 15.6094 15.3727 3.1 39.48 7.713 15.758 15.3519 5.3 6.72 8.0122 16.2961 15.6924 7.9 0.71 7.5901 14.9987 14.769 3.2 22.98 7.7454 15.3792 14.9965 5.3 4.73 7.761 15.5428 14.9547 8.2 0.81 7.5969 15.1856 14.9434 3.3 10.45 8.4944 16.1118 15.7007 5.7 1.84 7.6935 15.6657 15.0576 8.3 0.77 15 Bar (1.5 MPa) Moisture Content 6.0 6.9 7.0 6.4 E8_(B1/B2) W2_(A1/A2) W5_(A1/A2) W8_(B1/B2) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 0.1 1 10 100 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % Suction (MPa) W2_(A1/A2) W2_(A1/A2) Power (W2_(A1/A2)) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 0.1 1 10 100 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t , % Suction (MPa) W5_(A1/A2) W5_(A1/A2) Power (W5_(A1/A2)) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 0.1 1 10 100 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t , % Suction (MPa) W8_(B1/B2) W8_(B1/B2) Power (W8_(B1/B2)) 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 1 10 100 Mo i s t u r e C o n t e n t % Suction (Mpa) E8_(B1/B2) E8_(B1/B2) Power (E8_(B1/B2)) ATTACHMENT C SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 02/1 and 08/1: REVISED APPENDIX G, EROSIONAL STABILITY EVALUATION, TO THE UPDATED TAILINGS COVER DESIGN REPORT (APPENDIX D OF RECLAMATION PLAN, REVISION 5.0) Updated Tailings Cover Design Report APPENDIX G EROSIONAL STABILITY EVALUATION Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-1 August 2012 G.1 INTRODUCTION This appendix presents the hydrologic analysis and evaluation of erosion protection for the cover surface of the White Mesa Mill tailings disposal cells and for the discharge channel and sedimentation basin. These analyses have been conducted in a manner consistent with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) guidelines documented in NRC (1990) and Johnson (2002). The analyses include the tasks listed below. 1. Selection of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) as the design event for the site. 2. Calculation of the peak discharge (due to the PMP) from the surfaces of Cells 1, 2, 3, 4A and 4B for the cover surface, and for the drainage basin for the discharge channel. 3. Evaluation of reclaimed tailings disposal cell surfaces for erosional stability (the top surfaces and the reclaimed embankment slopes) and evaluation of the discharge channel and sedimentation basin for erosional stability. 4. Evaluation of the need for filter material between erosional protection riprap and underlying soil layers on the transition slopes on the top surface, the reclaimed embankment slopes, and the rock aprons. 5. Evaluation of the need for a rock apron at the toe of the reclaimed embankment slopes to accommodate flow transitioning from embankment slopes to native ground. 6. Evaluation of surface sheet erosion of top surface of cells due to action of surface water and wind. These tasks are presented in the following sections of this appendix. G.2 CONCEPTUAL EROSIONAL PROTECTION DESIGN Erosional protection was evaluated for the proposed monolithic ET cover design based on the following proposed cover surface of the tailings disposal cells, as well as for the sedimentation basin and diversion channel: • Cells 2 and 3 top surfaces graded to 0.5% slope: Erosional protection is provided by 6 inches of topsoil vegetated with a grass mixture providing poor or better vegetated conditions with a minimum of 30 percent plant coverage (representing drought conditions). • Portions of Cell 1 and 2 with top surfaces graded at 1% slope and Cells 4A and 4B with top surfaces at 0.82% slope: Erosional protection is provided by 6 inches of topsoil mixed with 25% (by weight) of 1-inch minus (D100 = 1 inch) gravel, vegetated with a grass mixture providing poor or better vegetated conditions with a minimum of 30 percent plant coverage (representing drought conditions). • External side slopes graded to 5 horizontal to 1 vertical (5H:1V): Erosional protection is provided by various sized angular and rounded riprap with thicknesses ranging from 6 to 8 inches and minimum D50’s ranging from 1.5 to 5.3 inches. Filter material will be placed between the erosional protection and the underlying soil layer. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-2 August 2012 • Cover transition slopes graded to 10H:1V: Erosional protection is provided by 7 inches of angular riprap with a minimum D50 of 4.5 inches. Filter material will be placed between the erosional protection and the underlying soil layer. • A rock apron at the toe of 5H:1V slopes: Erosional protection and scour protection on the west and east sides of the cells is provided by a rock apron measuring 10.2 inches deep and 4.25 feet in width, with a D50 of 3.4 inches. On the south side of cells 4A and 4B, and east side of Cell 4A, the rock apron measures 2.7 feet in depth, 13.2 feet in width, and has a D50 of 10.6 inches. On the north side slope of the Cell 1 disposal area, the rock apron measures 2.3 feet deep, 11.3 feet wide, and contains a minimum D50 of 9.0 inches. • Sedimentation Basin area graded to 0.1% slope: Erosional protection is provided by 6 inches of topsoil vegetated with a grass mixture providing poor or better vegetated conditions with a minimum of 30 percent plant coverage (representing drought conditions). • Diversion Channel: The diversion channel will be excavated into bedrock. G.3 PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION EVENT As outlined in NRC (1990) and Johnson (2002), the design event for evaluation of long-term erosional stability of the reclaimed tailings disposal cells is the PMP. The selected PMP events used to calculate the peak discharges for evaluation of erosional stability were the six-hour duration PMP (with a precipitation total of 9.6 inches) and the one-hour duration PMP (with a precipitation total of 8.3 inches). These events were determined for the site area using “Hydrometeorological Report (HMR) No. 49: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages (Hansen et al. 1984) , as well as Jensen (1995). Rainfall depth versus duration for short-term events (less than 1 hour) was developed using procedures in HMR 49 and NUREG/CR-4620 (Nelson et al., 1986). PMP calculations were provided in Denison (2009) and updated in Denison (2012). The calculations are provided in Attachment G.1. G.4 CALCULATION OF PEAK DISCHARGE The peak discharge calculations were made using the Rational Method as described in Johnson (2002) and Nelson et al. (1986). The time of concentration was calculated for the longest flow path (see Figure G.1) across the tailings disposal cells using procedures by Kirpich, Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and Brant and Oberman as presented in Nelson et al. (1986) and DOE (1989). Equal weight was given to each of the three methods. A runoff coefficient of 1.0 was used to represent PMP conditions (DOE, 1989). These characteristics represent high runoff quantities and peak flow velocities. The PMP discharge results across the tailings disposal cells are presented in Table G.1. These discharges represent flow across a unit-width across the slope. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-3 August 2012 Table G.1. Peak Reclaimed Surface Discharges Location Slope Length (feet) Time of Concentration (min) Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Runoff Coefficient Peak Unit Discharge (cfs/ft) Upper reach of Cell 2 at 0.5 % slope 350 7.0 38.1 1.0 0.31 Middle reach of Cell 2 at 1 % slope 600 14.4 25.3 1.0 0.55 Lower reach of Cell 2 at 0.5 % slope 550 23.4 18.0 1.0 0.62 Cell 3 at 0.5 % slope 830 35.0 13.1 1.0 0.70 Cell 4A at 0.8 % slope 1200 47.0 10.2 1.0 0.83 Cell 4A side slopes at 20% slope 210 48.5 10.0 1.0 0.88 Note: Flow accumulates as it flows from Cell 2 to Cell 4A The unit discharge values in Table G.1 above were used to evaluate the erosional stability of the reclaimed surfaces and size erosion protection materials where necessary. These evaluations are presented in Sections G.5 and G.6. G.5 EROSIONAL STABILITY OF VEGETATED SLOPES The surface of the reclaimed tailings disposal cells was evaluated for erosional stability using the methods recommended in NRC (1990) and Johnson (2002). Temple Method. Temple and others (1987) outlines procedures for grass-lined channel design. These procedures are recommended in Johnson (2002) for areas of vegetated cover and include methods for estimating stresses on channel vegetation as well as the channel surface soils. The evaluation for the tailings disposal cells used the peak discharge values from the PMP (summarized in Table G.1) to conservatively represent the effective stresses from runoff on the cover surface. The stresses on both the vegetation and the soil were evaluated. The erosional stability of the cover surface for the tailings disposal cells was evaluated by calculating a factor of safety against erosion due to the peak runoff from the PMP. Factor-of- safety values were calculated as the ratio of the allowable stresses (the resisting strength of the cover vegetation or soils) to the effective stresses (the stresses impacted by the runoff flowing over the cover). Two factors of safety were calculated for each analysis to evaluate both the resistance of the vegetation, and the resistance of the silty topsoil layer. The peak unit discharge flow for the tailings disposal cells (from Table G.1) was conservatively multiplied by a concentration factor of 3 to account for channelization of flow. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-4 August 2012 AlIowable stresses. Allowable stresses for the cover soils were calculated using the equations in Temple and others (1987). Material planned for the upper layer of the cover system is the on- site stockpiled topsoil. Laboratory testing of the topsoil conducted in 2010 (see Appendix A) indicates the topsoil classifies as either a silty clay with sand or a sandy silty clay. The D75 (diameter of which 75% of the material is finer) is approximately 0.08 mm to 0.1 mm (.003 in to .004 in) with a plasticity index (PI) of approximately 4 to 7. The resistance of a silty soil with a PI less than 10 is estimated to be approximately 0.02 psf (Temple et al., 1987). For noncohesive soils with a D75 greater than 0.05 in., the resistance is calculated as follows: 0.4 , for soils with D75>0.05 in, 0.02, for noncohesive soils with D75≤0.05 in. Where a = allowable shear strength (psf), and D75 = particle diameter in which 75 percent of the soil is finer (inch). For areas where 1-inch gravel is added to the topsoil (25 percent by weight), the D75 of the topsoil mixture will increase to approximately 0.2 inches. As discussed in Appendix J of this report, the cover will be vegetated with a mixture of perennial grasses (primarily wheatgrass, ricegrass, squirreltail, and fescue) and forbs (yarrow and sage). The allowable vegetation shear strength is calculated as: 0.75 Where va = allowable vegetation shear strength (in psf), CI =cover index = 2.5 [h(M)1/2]1/3, h = stem length (ft), and M = stem density factor (stems per square ft). Conservatively using poor vegetation conditions, h=1.0, M=67, and CI=5.03, the resulting vegetation shear strength value is 3.78 psf. Effective stresses. The effective shear stress on soil due to peak runoff from the PMP was calculated as: 1 / Where e = effective shear stress (psf), = unit weight of water = 62.4 pcf, d = depth of flow (ft), from Table G-2, S = slope of cover surface (ft/ft), from Table G-1, Cf = cover factor (0.375 for poor vegetation), ns = soil roughness factor (0.0156 for soils with D75≤0.05 in., or 0.0256(D75)1/6 for D75 > 0.05 in), and n = Manning's roughness coefficient for vegetated surface. .. .. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-5 August 2012 The effective shear stress on vegetation is calculated as: Where v = effective vegetal stress (psf). Conservatively using poor vegetation conditions, the effective shear stresses on soil and vegetation on the tailings cover surfaces are summarized in Table G.2. Table G.2. Effective Shear Stresses on Soil and Vegetation Location Description of Erosion Protection Depth of Flow1 (ft) Soil Vegetation Effective Shear Stress (psf) Allowable Shear Stress (psf) Factor of Safety Effective Shear Stress (psf) Allowable Shear Stress (psf) Factor of Safety Cell 1 at 1% slope Vegetation and Gravel (D75=0.2 in) 0.80 0.04 0.08 2.0 0.449 3.78 8.4 Cell 2 at 0.5 % slope Vegetation (D75 = 0.003 in) 0.96 0.016 0.02 1.2 0.284 3.78 13.3 Cell 2 at 1 % slope Vegetation and gravel (D75 = 0.2 in) 0.76 0.035 0.08 2.3 0.439 3.78 8.6 Cell 3 at 0.5 % slope Vegetation (D75 = 0.003 in) 1.01 0.019 0.02 1.1 0.296 3.78 12.8 Cells 4A and 4B at 0.8 % slope Vegetation and gravel (D75 = 0.2 in) 0.96 0.050 0.08 1.6 0.439 3.78 8.6 1 Calculated using a concentration factor of 3 for peak unit discharge The calculated factors of safety above show that for poor vegetation conditions, the allowable shear strengths are higher than the effective shear stresses on both the vegetation and the soil during peak discharge from the PMP. When vegetation conditions are good or better, the soil factor of safety improves significantly, while the vegetation factor of safety decreases slightly, but remains well above 1.0. Further details of calculations can be found in Attachment G.2. These analyses indicate that the cover on the top surface of the tailings disposal cells can be constructed as a vegetated slope. Top slopes at 0.5 percent slopes are adequately stable without the addition of gravel, while the 1 percent slope in Cell 2, and the 0.8 percent slope in Cells 4A and 4B will require the addition of approximately 25% of 1-inch-minus gravel. G.6 EROSIONAL STABILITY OF ROCK-PROTECTED SIDE-SLOPES Because of the difficulty in maintaining vegetation on side slopes, the 5:1 side slopes have been designed for erosional protection assuming vegetation is minimal. The maximum unit discharge value from Table G.1 was used to size riprap for the embankment slopes. The Johnson and Abt Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-6 August 2012 method referenced in Johnson (2002) was used for the side slopes. The required angular rock size is calculated as follows: 5.23 .. Where D50 = median particle diameter of which 50 percent of the soil is finer (inch), S = slope (ft/ft), and qdesign = design flow (cfs/ft). Flow Characteristics. The peak unit discharge values from Table G.1 were used to represent flow conditions across the cover surface and down the embankment side slopes south of Cells 4A and 4B. Concentration factors of 3 were used to account for channelization of flow. Rock Characteristics. A specific gravity of 2.65 was assumed for the riprap. The overall erosion protection design uses rounded and angular rock for the embankment side slopes. Angular rock was selected for slopes where the required minimum D50 for rounded rock was too large to produce. For areas where rounded rock was selected, the minimum D50 was increased by 40 percent in the design to account for rounded rock characteristics (Abt and Johnson, 1991). The results of the riprap sizing for the embankment slopes are summarized in Table G.3 below. Table G.3. Results of Riprap Sizing Location Design Unit Discharge (cfs/ft) Slope (ft/ft) Concentration Factor Median Rock Size (inches) Non-Accumulating Side Slopes (Rounded Rock) 0.06 0.20 3 1.7 Cell 4A and 4B southern side slopes(Angular Rock) 0.86 0.20 3 5.3 Cell 1 Disposal Area side slope (Angular Rock) 0.64 0.20 3 4.5 Filter Requirements. NUREG-1623 (Johnson, 2002) recommends a filter or bedding layer be placed under the erosion protection if interstitial velocities are greater than 1 ft/s, in order to prevent erosion of the underlying soils. Bedding is not required if interstitial velocities are less than 0.5 ft/s, and are recommended depending on the characteristics of the underlying soil if velocities are between 0.5 and 1.0 ft/s. Interstitial velocities are calculated by procedures presented by Abt et al. (1991) as given in the following equation: 0.23 . Where Vi = interstitial velocities (ft/s), G = acceleration due to gravity (ft/s2), D10 = stone diameter at which 10 percent is finer (inches), and S = gradient in decimal form. The maximum D10 of the erosion protection is estimated based on the D50 required for erosion protection, assuming the erosion protection will have a coefficient of uniformity (CU) of 6 and a band width of 5. Band width refers to the ratio of the minimum and maximum allowed particle Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-7 August 2012 sizes acceptable for any given percent finer designation. USDA (1994) recommends CU to be a maximum of 6 in order to prevent gap-grading of filters. Table G.4 summarizes the results for the side slopes. Table G.4. Results of Filter Requirements for Side Slopes Location Non-Accumulating Side Slopes (Rounded Rock) Cell 4A and 4B southern side slopes(Angular Rock) Cell 1 Disposal Area side slope (Angular Rock) Minimum D50 (inches) 1.7 5.3 4.5 Maximum D10 (inches) 0.53 1.64 1.39 Slope (%) 20 20 20 Interstitial Velocity (ft/s) 0.43 0.75 0.69 Filter Requirement No Recommended Recommended Based on the results in Table G.4 and the fine-grained nature of the top soil, it is recommended that a filter be placed between the soil and the rock protection for the side slope areas that require angular riprap. These areas include the southern side slopes of Cells 4A and 4B as well as the northern side slope of the Cell 1 disposal area as shown in Figure G.1. The interstitial velocity results confirm that a filter is not necessary for the non-accumulating side slopes where rounded rock is proposed on the west and east sides of Cells 2, 3 and 4. Gradation for proposed Filter. The procedure from USDA (1994) for determining the gradation limits for a sand or gravel filter was used to evaluate the type of material needed to satisfy filter requirements between the soil and rock protection for the side slopes. The method details twelve steps to determine an appropriate gradation range for the filter layer. The steps can be found in Chapter 26 of the USDA Handbook and are shown in the Attachment G.2 for supporting calculations. In addition, Equation 5.3 from Cedegren (1989) and Equation 4.36 from Nelson et al. (1986) were used to determine the filter gradation requirements. and Table G.5 presents the recommended gradation. Table G.5. Results of Filter Gradation Requirements Diameter (mm) Sieve Sizes Percent Passing 76.2 3" 100 4.75 No. 4 70-100 0.85 No. 20 40-60 0.075 No. 200 0-5 Based on the results of Table G.5, the filter material should be a medium sand that will be placed between the erosion protection and the base layer on the side slopes. Sheet Erosion. The Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) as presented in NUREG/CR4620 (Nelson et al., 1986) was used to evaluate the potential for soil loss due to sheet flows across the gravel/topsoil surface layer of the cover. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-8 August 2012 The MUSLE is defined as: ∗ ∗ ∗ Where: A = soil loss, in tons per acre per year, R = rainfall factor, K = soil erodibility factor, LS = topographic factor, and VM = dimensionless erosion factor relating to vegetative and mechanical factors The rainfall factor, R, is 30, as given in NUREG/CR-4620 for the eastern third of Utah. The soil erodibility factor, K, was estimated to be 0.28 for the topsoil and 0.16 for the gravel and topsoil mixture, based on the nomograph (Fig. 5.1) in NUREG/CR-4620. The topographic factor, LS, is calculated based on the following equation: 650 450 65 10,000 ∗ 72.6 Where: s = slope steepness, in percent (%), L = slope length in feet, m = slope steepness dependent exponent The topographic factor was calculated using a slope of 0.82% and a slope length of 1,300 feet. From the Table 5.2 in NUREG/CR-4620, the slope steepness exponent, m, is 0.2 for slopes less than or equal to 1.0%. The erosion factor, VM, used was 0.4, from Table 5.3 of NUREG/CR-4620, to represent seedlings of 0 to 60 days, to mimic light vegetation on the cover. Table G.5 summarizes the MUSLE results for the proposed topsoil and the proposed topsoil mixed with 25% gravel, by weight. Table G.6. Results of MUSLE Soil Cover Proposed Topsoil Proposed Topsoil with 25% Gravel Rainfall factor, R 30 30 Silt and very fine sand (%) 43.6 32.7 Sand (%) 39.2 29.4 Organic matter (%) 1.5 1.5 Soil structure Fine granular Medium or coarse granular Relative permeability Moderate Moderate to rapid Erodibility factor, K 0.28 0.12 Topographic Factor, LS 0.16 0.19 Erosion factor, VM – low density seedings 0.4 0.4 Soil loss (tons/acre/year) 0.54 0.27 Soil loss (inches/1,000 years) 3.0 1.5 The soil loss equation shows the potential for erosion will be reduced by almost one half, by using 25% gravel in the topsoil mixture. The topsoil loss of 1.5 to 3.0 inches over the life of the cover (1,000 years) is less than the minimum design thickness of 6 inches. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-9 August 2012 G.7 ROCK SIZING FOR APRON Additional erosion protection will be provided for runoff from the south side slopes of the reclaimed surfaces of Cells 4A and 4B, the east side of Cell 4A, and the north side of Cell 1 with a rock apron. The perimeter apron will: (1) serve as an impact basin and provide for energy dissipation of runoff, (2) provide erosion protection, and (3) transition flow from side slopes to natural ground. The median rock size required in the perimeter apron was calculated using the equations derived by Abt et al. (1998) as outlined in NUREG 1623 (Johnson, 2002) as follows: 10.46 .. Flow Characteristics. The peak unit discharge values from Table G.1 were used to represent flow conditions down the embankment side slopes south of Cells 4A and 4B. Concentration factors of 3 were used to account for channelization of flow. Rock Characteristics. A specific gravity of 2.65 was assumed for the riprap. Both rounded and angular rock was used in the apron design. Based on the above equation, the rock apron (Apron A) along the toe of the non-accumulating slopes covered with rounded riprap (west and east side slopes of Cells 2 and 3) should be constructed using rounded rock with a median rock diameter of 3.4 inches. The width of the apron should be a minimum of 15 times the median rock size (4.25 ft) and the apron thickness should be a minimum of three times the median rock size (10.2 inches). Rock Apron B should be placed on the toes of the south slope of Cells 4A and 4B and along the east of Cell 4A, . Apron B should have a median angular rock size of 10.6 inches, with a minimum width of 13.2 feet and a minimum thickness of 2.7 feet. Rock Apron C should be placed on the toes of the remaining slope (Cell 1 disposal area side slope). Apron C should have a median rock size of 9.0 inches, a minimum width of 11.3 feet, and a minimum thickness of 2.3 feet. Filter Requirements. NUREG-1623 (Johnson, 2002), as detailed in section G.6, was used to determine if a bedding layer was required for the rock aprons. The results are presented in Table G.7 below. Table G.7. Results of Filter Requirements for Rock Aprons Location Apron A: Non- Accumulating Slopes (Rounded) Apron B: Cell 4A and 4B slopes(Angular) Apron C: Cell 1 disposal area side slope (Angular) Minimum D50 (inches) 3.4 10.6 9.0 Maximum D10 (inches) 1.0 3.3 2.8 Slope (%) 1 1 1 Interstitial Velocity (ft/s) 0.13 0.24 0.22 Filter Requirement No No No Based on the results in Table G.7, it is not required to place a bedding layer between the soil and rock protection for the rock aprons. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-10 August 2012 G.8 DISCHARGE CHANNEL AND SEDIMENTATION BASIN The PMP event described in section G.3 was used to determine the peak discharge to the channel to be located at the west end of the sedimentation basin. The peak discharge calculations were made using the Rational Method and the time of concentration was calculated for the longest flow path (see Figure G.1) across the mill site and sedimentation basin using the procedures described in section G.4. A runoff coefficient of 1.0 was used to represent PMP conditions (DOE, 1989). These characteristics represent high runoff quantities and peak flow velocities. The PMP peak discharge calculated across the mill site and sedimentation basin is presented in Table G.8. This discharge represents the peak flow into the channel. Further details of the calculations can be found in Attachment G.1 Table G.8. Peak Discharge Flow to the Discharge Channel Location Slope Length (feet) Time of Concentration (min) Rainfall Intensity (in/hr) Runoff Coefficient Peak Discharge (cfs) Mill site and sedimentation basin 4,600 26.3 16.4 1.0 2,440 The peak discharge value in Table G.8 above, was used to evaluate the peak flow velocities through the discharge channel excavated into bedrock. The channel dimensions are shown on Drawing REC-3 and include a 150-foot bottom width and 3:1 (H:V) side slopes. The Manning’s n-value was estimated and adjusted based on the anticipated type of bedrock and the presumed roughness, along the channel, after excavation. Table G.9 includes peak flow velocities for Manning’s n-values of 0.02 and 0.03. Table G.9. Peak Discharge Channel Flow Velocities Location Channel Bottom Width (feet) Channel Side Slopes (H:V) Manning Coefficient, n Flow Depth (ft) Cross Sectional Area of Flow (ft2) Hydraulic Radius (ft) Peak Velocity (fps) Discharge channel 150 3:1 0.02 1.67 259 1.61 9.4 Discharge channel 150 3:1 0.03 2.12 332 2.03 7.3 Based on the available bedrock information near the channel location, the rock is expected to consist of a fine to medium-grained sandstone with varying degrees of cementation and weathering, or a claystone (Dames and Moore, 1978). The shear wave velocities from seismic refraction surveys indicate the bedrock will range from rippable to hard rock, requiring blasting (D’Appolonia, 1979). Because of this variability, an initial Manning’s n-value of 0.015 was selected, for a channel in rock and then modifications of 0.005 and 0.015 were added for increasing irregularities in the final excavated rock surface. (USBR, 1987). Maximum suggested permissible peak channel velocities are 10 feet per second for channels excavated in “poor rock” (USACE, 1994). Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-11 August 2012 G.9 REFERENCES Abt, S., Ruff, J., and Wittler, R., 1991. Estimating Flow Through Riprap, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 5, May. Abt, S., and Johnson, T. 1991. Riprap Design for Overtopping Flow, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 8, August. Cedegren, H.R., 1989. Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets. Equation 5.3. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Dames and Moore, 1978. Site Selection and Design Study - Tailing Retention and Mill Facilities White Mesa Uranium Project. January 17. D’Appalonia, 1979. Tailings Management System, White Mesa Uranium Project, Blanding Utah. June. Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (Denison), 2009. “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) Corporation (Denison), 2012. Responses to Interrogatories – Round 1 for Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, March 2012; Attachment B: Updated Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Calculation. May 31. Hansen, E. M., Schwarz, F.K., Riedel, J.T., 1984. “Hydrometeorological Report No. 49: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages,” Hydrometeorological Branch Office of Hydrology, National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Silver Springs, MD. Jensen, D. 1995. Final Report: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates for Short Duration, Small Area Storms in Utah, October. Johnson, T.L., 2002. "Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stabilization." U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NUREG-1623. September. MWH, Inc. (MWH), 2010. Revised Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling Report, White Mesa Mill Site, Blanding, Utah, prepared for Dension Mines, March. Nelson, J., S. Abt, R. Volpe, D. van Zyl, N. Hinkle, and W. Staub, 1986. "Methodologies for Evaluation of Long-term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments." NUREG/CR-4620, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June. Temple, D.M., K.M. Robinson, R.A. Ahring, and A.G. Davis, 1987. "Stability Design of Grass- Lined Open Channels." USDA Handbook 667. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1994. Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, EM 1110-2- 1601. p.2-16. June. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report Denison Mines (USA) Corporation MWH Americas, Inc. G-12 August 2012 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1994. Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters, National Engineering Handbook, Part 633, Chapter 26, October. 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. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), 1987. Design of Small Dams. 3rd Edition. p.595. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1990. "Final Staff Technical Position, Design of Erosion Protective Covers for Stabilization of Uranium Mill Tailings Sites," August. Updated Tailings Cover Design Report ATTACHMENT G.1 PMP CALCULATIONS DENISON (2012) DENISON (2009) Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project: White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date: 5/10/2012 Detail: Updated Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Calculation Computed By: MMD References: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (Denison), 2009. 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. Hansen, E. M., Schwarz, F.K., Riedel, J.T., 1984. Hydrometeorological Report No. 49: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages, Hydrometeorological Branch Office of Hydrology, National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, U.S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Silver Springs, MD. Jensen, D. 1995. Final Report: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates for Short Duration, Small Area Storms in Utah, October. Jensen, D., 2003. 2002 Update for Probable Maximum Precipitation, Utah 72 Hour Estimates to 5,000 sq. mi., March. Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC), 2012. Denison Mines (USA) Corp's White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0, Interrogatories - Round 1, March. Approach: Update previous calculations (Denison, 2009) to incorporate Jensen (1995) and Jensen (2003) references as recommended by DRC (2012) Jensen (2003) is applicable for 72-hour durations for areas up to 5,000 square miles. Incorporation of this reference does not modify the previous calculations for one-hour or six-hour duration PMP values for the site. Calculations: Site Information Parameter Value Units Drainage Area 0.4 mi2 Latitude N 37ο31' Longitude W 109o30' Minimum Elevation 5600 ft Updated Local-Storm PMP Estimates Parameter Value Units One-hour point precipitation PMP value 8.6 in Elevation Reduction 97 % One-Hour PMP (adjusted for elevation) 8.3 in 6-hr to 1-hr Depth Percentage 115 % Six-Hour PMP 9.6 in Areal Reduction 100 % RESULTS One-Hour Duration PMP 8.3 in Six-Hour Duration PMP 9.6 in Updated Local-Storm PMP Incremental Values Duration (hr) Percentage of 1-hr PMP Depth (in) Incremental Depth (in) 0.25 50 4.2 4.2 Hourly Increments Depth (in) 15-Min. Increments Depth (in) 0.5 74 5.5 1.3 1st 0.1 1st 4.2 0.75 90 7.5 2.0 2nd 0.2 2nd 2.0 1 100 8.3 0.8 3rd 8.3 3rd 1.3 2 110 9.1 0.8 4th 0.8 4th 0.8 3 112 9.3 0.2 5th 0.1 4 113.5 9.4 0.1 6th 0.1 5 114.5 9.5 0.1 6 115 9.6 0.1 Denison (2009) Denison (2009) Denison (2009) for Cells 2 through 4B Comments One-Hour Duration PMPSix-Hour Duration PMP Comments Jensen (1995) references Figure 4.7 in Hansen (1984). Denison (2009) Jensen (1995) recomments same elevation reduction as used in Hansen (1984). This is the same value presented in Denison (2009) Table 15 in Jensen (1995) One-hour PMP multiplied by 6-hr to 1-hr depth percentage Table 15 in Jensen (1995) for 1 sq. mi. area L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.2 Technical\6.2.1 Calculations\Erosion Protection\Erosion Protection(5-10-12)_mmd.xlsx EXHIBIT C PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION (PMP) EVENT CALCULATION PACKAGE Page 1 of 5 Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 09/04/09 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 9/10/09 Client: DMC Project: White Mesa Mill- Cell 4B Project/ Proposal No.: SC0349 Task No.: 02 PMP Calc 20090910Fcalc.doc PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION (PMP) EVENT COMPUTATION WHITE MESA MILL – CELL 4B BLANDING, UTAH OBJECTIVE The purpose of this calculation is to evaluate the local-storm Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event for the White Mesa Mill Facility site located in Blanding, Utah. This calculation demonstrates that the probable maximum precipitation (PMP) event that the site will experience is 10 inches (0.83 ft) in 6 hours. PMP COMPUTATION PROCEDURE The Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) for the site was evaluated using “Hydrometeorological Report No. 49: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages” (Hansen, et. al., 1984). The use of this method is cited in a hydrology report that was prepared as part of an agreement between UMETCO and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during the permitting of Cell 4A (UMETCO, 1990). PROBABLE MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION EVENT CALCULATIONS Step 1: Calculate the Average 1-hr 1-mi2 PMP for drainage using Figure 4.5 The average 1-hr 1-mi2 PMP is 8.6-in (Attachment A, 1/7) Step 2a: Reduce the 1-hr 1-mi2 PMP event for elevation If the lowest elevation within the drainage is above 5,000 feet (ft) above Mean Seal Level (MSL), decrease the PMP value from Step 1 by 5% for each 1,000 ft or proportionate fraction thereof above 5,000 ft to obtain the elevation adjusted drainage average 1-hr 1-mi2 PMP. The elevation of Cell 4B is 5,598 ft above MSL, which is conservatively the lowest elevation for the completed cells 2 through 4B; therefore, it is required to interpolate Page 2 of 5 Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 09/04/09 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 9/10/09 Client: DMC Project: White Mesa Mill- Cell 4B Project/ Proposal No.: SC0349 Task No.: 02 PMP Calc 20090910Fcalc.doc between 95% and 100% using the following equation: ft x ft 598 % 000,1 %5 =; x = 3% reduction 100 % - 3 % = 97 % Therefore, reduce the value obtained in Step 1 by 97%. Step 2b: Multiply the number calculated in Step 1 by the number calculated in Step 2a. 8.6 inches x 0.97 = 8.3 inches Step 3: Determine the average 6/1-hr ratio for drainage using Figure 4.7 The average 6/1-hr ratio for drainage is approximately 1.2. (Attachment A, 2/7) Step 4: Calculate the durational variation for 6/1-hr ratio of Step 3 using Table 4.4 The durational value is determined using Table 4.4 is as follows: (Attachment A, 3/7) Duration (hr) ¼ ½ ¾ 1 2 3 4 5 6 74 89 95 100 110 115 118 119 120 % Step 5: Multiply step 2b by Step 4 to calculate the 1-mi2 PMP for indicated durations For example, for the ¼ hour duration: 8.3 x 0.74 = 6.1 The following numbers are calculated as follows: Duration (hr) ¼ ½ ¾ 1 2 3 4 5 6 6.1 7.4 7.9 8.3 9.1 9.5 9.8 9.9 10.0 in. Step 6: Determine the areal reduction using Figure 4.9 for the site: Page 3 of 5 Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 09/04/09 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 9/10/09 Client: DMC Project: White Mesa Mill- Cell 4B Project/ Proposal No.: SC0349 Task No.: 02 PMP Calc 20090910Fcalc.doc First, determine the total watershed contributing to Cell 4B, including Cell 4B. The watershed areas of the upstream Cells 2, 3, and 4A are 87 acres (ac), 83 ac, and 40 ac, respectively and the proposed Cell 4B is 42 ac. Areas outside of these cells do not drain to Cell 4B and are therefore not part of the watershed area. Total acreage is 87 ac + 83 ac + 42 ac + 42 ac = 254 acres. Next, convert this number into square miles: 2 2 2 40.0)280,5( )1( 1 560,43254 2 mift mixacre ftxacre = Using Figure 4.9, the depth ratio of ≤1 mi2 is 100 percent for each of the durations (Attachment A, 4/7). Step 7: Multiply the duration values in Step 5 by the areal reduction in Step 6 to calculate the areal reduced PMP. This step is neglected because the depth ratio is 100 percent; therefore, the values obtained in Step 5 are not reduced. Step 8: Calculate the incremental PMP using successive subtraction of the values in Step 7 for the hourly durations (1 hr through 6 hr) and 15-minute incremental durations (1/4 hr through 1 hr). The incremental PMP is calculated in two separate steps; the incremental PMP is calculated on the first line for the hourly increments (hours 1 through 6) and then calculated on the second line for the 15-minute increments during the first hour of the storm. To determine the incremental PMP, the following formula is used: ttttotPMPPMPPMP−=++11 , where t = time In this example, the PMP between the first interval and second interval is determined by subtracting the PMP for interval 1 from the PMP for the second interval, as calculated in Step 5. The following equation illustrates the calculation of the incremental PMP between hours 0 and 1: Page 4 of 5 Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 09/04/09 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 9/10/09 Client: DMC Project: White Mesa Mill- Cell 4B Project/ Proposal No.: SC0349 Task No.: 02 PMP Calc 20090910Fcalc.doc =−01PMPPMP 8.3 in – 0 in. = 8.3 in. The next equation illustrates the calculation of the incremental PMP between hours 1 and 2: =−12PMPPMP 9.1 in – 8.3 in. = 0.8 in. This calculation is continued until the following table is completed as shown for each PMP interval. Duration (hr) ¼ ½ ¾ 1 2 3 4 5 6 8.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 in. 6.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 in. Step 9: Order the incremental PMP in a sequence dictated by hourly and 15-minute increments using Table 4.7 (Attachment 5/7) and Table 4.8 (Attachment 6/7), respectively. The incremental PMP calculated in Step 8 must now be arranged in a specific order to model the runoff generated by the storm event. This order is dictated by Table 4.7 for the hourly PMP intervals and Table 4.8 for the 15-minute PMP intervals. The final arrangement of the numbers determined in Step 8 is as follows: Hourly increments: 0.1 0.4 8.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 in. 15-minute increments: 6.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 in. The storm’s 6 hour PMP runoff event is calculated by summing the incremental PMP for each hour of the storm. 0.1 in. + 0.4 in. + 8.3 in. + 0.8 in. + 0.2 in. + 0.1 in. = 9.9 inches (10 inches). This step is repeated to calculate the runoff generated during the first hour of the storm. 6.1 in. + 1.3 in. + 0.5 in. + 0.4 in. = 8.3 inches Page 5 of 5 Written by: M. Lithgow Date: 09/04/09 Reviewed by: G. Corcoran Date: 9/10/09 Client: DMC Project: White Mesa Mill- Cell 4B Project/ Proposal No.: SC0349 Task No.: 02 PMP Calc 20090910Fcalc.doc Because 9.9 > 8.3, the runoff generated from the 6 hour storm (9.9 inches) is used. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Our calculations are summarized in a worksheet modeled after Table 6.3A in the Hydrometerological Report No. 49 and is provided as Attachment A, 7/7. Our analysis determined the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event generates 10 inches (0.83 ft) over 6 hours. REFERENCES UMETCO Minerals Corporation, 1990, “White Mesa Mill Drainage Report for Submittal to NRC.” Attachment A Hansen, E. Marshall, Schwartz, Francis K., Riedel, John T., 1984. “Hydrometeorological Report No. 49: Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages,” Hydrometeorological Branch Office of Hydrology National Weather Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration, U.S. Department of Army Corps of Engineers, Silver Springs, Md. Area mi2 Latitude: N 37° 31'Longitude: W 109° 30' Min. Elevation 5598 ft 1 Average 1-hr 1-mi2 (2.6-km2) PMP for drainage [fig. 4.5]8.6 in. 2a. Reduction for Elevation. [No adjustment for elevations up to 5,000 feet: 5% decrease per 1,000 feet above 5,000 feet.0.97 % b.Multiply step 1 by step 2a.8.3 in. 3.Average 6/1-hr ratio for drainage [fig 4.7]1.2 1/41/23/4123456 4 Durational variation for 6/1-hr ratio of step 3 [table 4.4]74 89 95 100 110 115 118 119 120 % 5 1-mi2 (2.6 km2) PMP for indicated durations [step 2b x step 4]6.1 7.4 7.9 8.3 9.1 9.5 9.8 9.9 10.0 6 Areal reduction [fig. 4.9]100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 % 7 Areal reduced PMP [steps 5 x 6 ]6.1 7.4 7.9 8.3 9.1 9.5 9.8 9.9 10.0 in. 8 Incremental PMP [successive subtraction in step 7]8.3 0.8 0.4 0.2 0.1 0.1 in. 6.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 } 15-min. increments 9 Time sequence of incremental PMP to: Hourly increments [table 4.7]0.1 0.4 8.3 0.8 0.2 0.1 in. 9.9 in. Four largest 15-min increments [table 4.8]6.1 1.2 0.5 0.4 in Total depth of 1st hour of storm 8.3 in. Duration (hr) Table 6.3A -- Local-storm PMP computation, Colorado River, Great Basin and California drainages. For drainage average depth PMP. Total depth of 6 hour storm 0.39Drainage: White Mesa Mill Facility, Cells 2 - 4B PMP Calculation.xlsx Attachment A, 7/7 Updated Tailings Cover Design Report ATTACHMENT G.2 SUPPORTING CALCULATIONS 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 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.1 Third-Hour Component Depths (inches)4.2 2.0 1.3 0.8 Third Hour 8.3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pr e c i p i t a t i o n ( i n c h e s ) Duration (min) Depth-Duration Erosion Protection(7-26-12):PMP Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS 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 2, 3, 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 0.2 210 42.7 42.7 60.0 48.5 96.9 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 Cell 2 and Side slopes that only drain area of slope Kirpich SCS Brant and Oberman Average Cell 2 Top 0.5% Slope 0.005 360 5.6 5.6 10.1 7.1 53.9 4.5 37.8 Cell 2 Top 1% Slope 0.01 600 11.9 11.9 19.7 14.5 73.4 6.1 25.2 Cell 2 Northern .5% Slope 0.005 600 20.2 20.2 31.7 24.0 85.1 7.1 17.6 Cell 1 Disposal 1% Slope 0.01 168 22.5 22.6 38.0 27.7 87.9 7.3 15.8 Cell 2 Northern Side Slope 0.2 96 23.0 23.1 39.9 28.7 88.5 7.3 15.4 Non-Accumulating Side Slopes 0.2 50 0.3 0.3 1.5 2.5 27.5 2.3 54.8 Note: These are the slopes on the sides of Cells 4A, 4B, 3, and 2 Flow Path 3: Flow Path Across Cell 1 Kirpich SCS Brant and Oberman Average Cell 1 at .1%0.001 2232 42.2 42.3 31.9 38.8 93.7 7.8 12.0 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 based on Figure A-5.1-1 Reclamation Plan Reve 3.2, March, 2010 PDPMP (in) Intensity (in/hr) Description Slope (feet/feet) Slope Length (feet) Time of Concentration (minutes) % of 1-hour PMP PDPMP (in) 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 Description Slope (feet/feet) Slope Length (feet) Time of Concentration (minutes) % of 1-hour PMP PDPMP (in) PDPMP (in) Slope (feet/feet) Intensity (in/hr) Intensity (in/hr) Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Time of concentration Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS 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 3740 1 47.0 10.2 0.88 Note: Flow accumulates as it flows from Cell 2 to Cell 4A Side Slope Flow Paths Cell 2 Top 0.5% Slope 360 1 7.1 37.8 0.31 Cell 2 Northern 1% Slope 960 1 14.5 25.2 0.56 Cell 2 Northern .5% Slope 1560 1 24.0 17.6 0.63 Cell 1 Disposal 1% Slope 1728 1 27.7 15.8 0.63 Cell 1 Disposal Side Slope 1824 1 28.7 15.4 0.64 Non- Accumulating Side Slopes 50 1 2.5 54.8 0.06 Cell 1 at .1%2232 1 38.8 12.0 0.62 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 2 - Cell 3 transition slope 1550 1 24.2 17.6 0.62 unit discharge 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) Description Total Drainage Length (ft) C Tc (min) Intensity (in/hr) unit discharge Description Total Drainage Length (ft) C Tc (min) Intensity (in/hr) Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Flow-PMP Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS 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 top 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 Topsoil Description Lean Clay Lean Clay Plasticity Index, PI <10 <10 (from 2005 RP) base allowable tractive shear stress (psf) ab= na na void ratio correction factor, Ce= na na allowable tractive shear stress (psf), a= 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) 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), va good veg 5.71 5.71 poor veg 3.78 3.78 Mannings 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 2.10 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 effective shear stress (psf), e good veg 0.0027 0.0032 poor veg 0.0162 0.0187 effective veg shear stress (psf) ve 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 slope good veg 7.4 6.2 poor veg 1.2 1.1 Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Temple d75<.05 Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date: 7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By: TMS 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 1 at 1% Cell 2 at 1% Cell 4A top PMP Design flow (cfs/ft)0.63 0.55 0.86 Concentration Factor, F 3 3 3 PMP Design flow (cfs/ft), q 1.88 1.66 2.58 Slope, S (ft/ft)0.01 0.01 0.0082 average dry density (pcf)100 100 100 (assumed value) average specific gravity 2.65 2.65 2.65 (assumed value) void ratio, e 0.654 0.654 0.654 unit weight water (pcf)61.4 62.4 62.4 Topsoil Description Topsoil with 25% 1"-minus gravel Topsoil with 25% 1"- minus gravel d75 (inches)0.2 0.2 0.2 from preliminary gradation specs base allowable tractive shear stress (psf) ab= na na na void ratio correction factor, Ce= na na na allowable tractive shear stress (psf), a= 0.080 0.080 0.080 Long-term, PMP precip Repr. stem length (ft) h(ave) good veg 2 2 2 pg 36 and 39 of Temple et al. (1987) poor veg 1 1 1 Repr. stem density (stems/sq ft), M(ave) good veg 200 200 200 Temple Table 3.1, grass mixture poor veg 67 67 67 Retardance curve index, Ci good veg 7.62 7.62 7.62 poor veg 5.03 5.03 5.03 Cover factor, Cf good veg 0.75 0.75 0.75 Temple Table 3.1, grass mixture poor veg 0.375 0.375 0.375 assume min 30% coverage allowable vegetated shear strength (psf), va good veg 5.71 5.71 5.71 poor veg 3.78 3.78 3.78 Mannings n for soil roughness, ns= 0.0196 0.0196 0.0196 Mannings n for vegetal conditions, nr good veg 0.0987 0.1067 0.0824 poor veg 0.0528 0.0556 0.0469 Mannings n for vegetated slopes, nv good veg 0.0994 0.1073 0.0833 poor veg 0.0541 0.0568 0.0484 assumed depth of flow, d (ft) good veg 1.148 1.114 1.325 poor veg 0.797 0.760 0.956 calculated q (cfs/ft), with veg good veg 1.88 1.66 2.58 poor veg 1.88 1.66 2.58 qcalc - qdesign good veg 0.00 0.00 0.00 poor veg 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iterate with d until q calc equals q design velocity (ft/s), v good veg 1.64 1.49 1.95 poor veg 2.36 2.18 2.70 effective shear stress (psf), e good veg 0.0068 0.0058 0.0094 poor veg 0.0400 0.0352 0.0501 effective veg shear stress (psf) ve good veg 0.6979 0.6891 0.6687 poor veg 0.4493 0.4393 0.4392 shear stress ratio, vegetated slope good veg 8.2 8.3 8.5 poor veg 8.4 8.6 8.6 shear stress ratio, soil on vegetated slope good veg 11.7 13.8 8.5 poor veg 2.0 2.3 1.6 Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Temple with gravel added Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS Abt and Johnson method (Abt and Johnson, 1991) applicable for slopes of 50% or less. Angular-Shaped rock sizing equation: For rounded rock, increase size by 40%. Area Cell 4A Flow Path 2 Southern Side Slope - Angular Non-Accumulating Side Slopes - Rounded Cell 2 Northern Side Slope - Angular Side Slope (ft/ft) 0.2 0.2 0.2 angle (rad)0.197 0.197 0.197 PMP unit flow (cfs/ft) 0.86 0.06 0.64 Concentration Factor 3 3 3 Coef. Of Movement 1.35 1.35 1.35 design flow (cfs/ft) 3.49 0.25 2.61 Coef. Of Uniformity NA NA NA design flow over rock (cfs/ft) 3.49 0.25 2.61 D50 (inches)5.27 1.70 4.48 Erosion Protection(7-26-12):CSU-Abt Riprap (for report) Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS 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) 4.48 Assuming Angular Rock, Safety Factor Method for Top Slope, Abt and Johnson (1991) method for side slopes Rock thickness (in) 8.96 Based on constructability: 1.5 to 2*D50. May consider 12" as minimum thickness for rock Maximum D50 (in) 5.97 Based on constructability: Thickness/1.5 Maximum D50 (in) 22.40 Prevent gap-grading: minimum D50*5 Maximum D50 (in) 5.97 Smaller of two above criteria Maximum D100 (in) 8.96 Based on constructability: 1*Thickness Maximum D100 (in) 29.86 Based on internal stability?: 5*maximum D50 Maximum D100 (in) 8.96 Smaller of two above criteria Minimum D100 (in) 6.72 1.5*minimum D50 Minimum D15 (in) 0.56 Based on internal stability: Maximum D100/16 Maximum D15 (in) 2.80 Prevent gap-grading: Minimum D15*5 Minimum D60 (in) 6.27 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6 Maximum D60 (in) 8.36 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6 Minimum D10 (in) 1.05 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6 Maximum D10 (in) 1.39 Prevent gap-grading: D60/D10<=6 Area Description Cell 4A side slope Erosion Protection(7-26-12):gradations Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS 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. Description Non- Accumulating Side Slopes - Rounded Cell 1 Disposal Area Side Slope - Angular Cell 4A Flow Path 2 Southern Side Slope - Angular Minimum D50 (inches) 1.70 4.48 5.27 from Safety Factor Method, or Abt/Johnson Method, assuming rounded rock Minimum D10 (inches) 0.40 1.05 1.23 from preliminary gradation specs Maximum D10 (inches) 0.53 1.39 1.64 from preliminary gradation specs Slope (ft/ft) 0.2 0.20 0.20 from preliminary design Min Velocity (ft/s) 0.37 0.60 0.65 calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on Min D10 Max Velocity (ft/s) 0.43 0.69 0.75 calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on Max D10 Underlying filter required?No Recommended Recommended Per NUREG 1623, Appendix D, section 2.1.1 Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Interstitial Velocity Angular Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/9/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS USDA Filter Gradation Calulations - 2010 Material Testing Step 1: Plot Gradation Curve of Base Soil Stockpile ID Description 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 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 2 2 2 2 2 2 D85 0.14 0.18 0.11 0.12 0.21 0.13 0.19 0.13 0.22 Step 5. Filtering Criteria (Max D15) (mm)0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 Step 6. Min D15 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 Step 7. Ratio 9.15 10.03 12.79 10.86 8.24 9.74 8.74 9.24 9.07 Control Point 1 (D15max)0.38 0.35 0.27 0.32 0.42 0.36 0.40 0.38 0.39 Control Point 2 (D15min)0.08 0.07 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.08 Step 8. MaxD10 0.32 0.29 0.23 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.33 0.32 0.32 CP3 Max D60 1.91 1.74 1.37 1.61 2.12 1.80 2.00 1.89 1.93 CP4 Min D60 0.38 0.35 0.27 0.32 0.42 0.36 0.40 0.38 0.39 Step 9. CP5 D5min 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 CP6 D100 max 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Step 10. CP7 D10 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 CP8 D90 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 For Plotting:4.75 100.00 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 5 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 Shaded boxes means these values were changed to meet the requirements from the references listed below. References cited and listed in Appendix G D50 base 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.06 D50 Fine Filter 0.31 0.29 0.23 0.27 0.35 0.30 0.33 0.31 0.32 D50 Course Filter 1.57 1.43 1.13 1.33 1.75 1.48 1.65 1.56 1.59 Nelson eqn 4.35 2.81 1.90 2.56 2.75 2.02 2.73 2.14 2.94 1.74 Cedergren eqn 5.3 24.67 24.67 24.67 24.67 24.67 24.67 24.67 24.67 24.67 Nelson eqn 4.36 2.81 1.90 2.56 2.75 2.02 2.73 2.14 2.94 1.74 W7 (Field ID 8) W1 (Field ID 12) W2 (Field ID 13) Sandy Clay Random Fill E4 (Field ID 2) Sandy Clay Random Fill E5 (Field ID 3) E6 (Field ID 4) E7 (Field ID 5) E8 (Field ID 6) W9 (Field ID 7) 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)E4 (Field ID 2) E5 (Field ID 3) Course Design Fine Design Band (Upper) Filter Transtion Design_NRCS(7-6-12):2010Fine-Grained Material_Final Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/9/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS USDA Filter Gradation Calulations - 2012 Material Testing Step 1: Plot Gradation Curve of Base Soil Field ID Description 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 Diameter (mm)% Finer 2" 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 50.8 100 1" 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 81.93 25.4 93.18 25.4 100 25.4 100 25.4 82.21 25.4 85.17 25.4 75.41 25.4 100 3/4" 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 76.8 19.1 90.46 19.1 100 19.1 100 19.1 81.53 19.1 79.85 19.1 75.41 19.1 98.84 3/8" 9.8 100 9.8 99.31 9.8 66.01 9.8 79.02 9.8 100 9.8 99.64 9.8 75.03 9.8 71.12 9.8 69.81 9.8 97.64 Nº 4 4.75 99.56 4.75 98.46 4.75 60.03 4.75 69.56 4.75 99.89 4.75 99.08 4.75 70.97 4.75 65.34 4.75 68.41 4.75 94.13 Nº 10 2 97.56 2 97.21 2 56.18 2 59.53 2 99.72 2 97 2 66.88 2 59.49 2 66.04 2 89.65 Nº 20 0.85 95.84 0.85 96.11 0.85 54.66 0.85 53.25 0.85 99.46 0.85 95.03 0.85 64.04 0.85 55.59 0.85 63.76 0.85 86.42 Nº 40 0.425 94.66 0.425 95.19 0.425 52.56 0.425 49.39 0.425 98.73 0.425 93.04 0.425 59.3 0.425 48.97 0.425 58.56 0.425 84.16 Nº 60 0.25 92.35 0.25 93.34 0.25 47.28 0.25 43.49 0.25 96.47 0.25 88.27 0.25 45.76 0.25 33.93 0.25 47.26 0.25 80.58 Nº 100 0.15 86.48 0.15 89.93 0.15 39.4 0.15 34.43 0.15 94.12 0.15 83.32 0.15 38.09 0.15 20.12 0.15 39.94 0.15 75.53 Nº 200 0.075 76.74 0.075 82.68 0.075 28.78 0.075 25.11 0.075 61.5 0.075 50.38 0.075 26.77 0.075 13.78 0.075 28.17 0.075 50.1 Note: Areas with fiels ID's E1-A and W4-B were topsoil samples and thus were not included in this analysis All Steps below are from USDA Ch. 26 Example 26-2A Step 4. Base Soil Category 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 2 D85 0.14 0.10 29.72 14.66 0.13 0.18 29.38 25.20 35.31 0.58 Step 5. Filtering Criteria (Max D15) (mm)0.70 0.70 53.73 35.21 0.70 0.70 62.53 100.79 67.20 0.70 Step 6. Min D15 0.10 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.27 0.16 0.10 Step 7. Ratio 7.00 7.00 343.64 196.48 7.00 7.00 371.98 368.62 420.65 7.00 Control Point 1 (D15max)0.50 0.49 0.78 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.84 1.37 0.80 0.50 Control Point 2 (D15min)0.10 0.10 0.16 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.17 0.27 0.16 0.10 Step 8. MaxD10 0.42 0.41 0.65 0.75 0.42 0.42 0.70 1.14 0.67 0.42 CP3 Max D60 2.50 2.45 3.91 4.48 2.50 2.50 4.20 6.84 3.99 2.50 CP4 Min D60 0.50 0.49 0.78 0.90 0.50 0.50 0.84 1.37 0.80 0.50 Step 9. CP5 D5min 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 CP6 D100 max 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 Step 10. CP7 min D10 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.15 0.08 0.08 0.14 0.23 0.13 0.08 CP8 D90 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 For Plotting:4.75 100 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 D(mm)% Finer 4 0.5 60 0.49 60 0.782 60 0.896 60 0.5 60 0.5 60 0.840 60 1.367 60 0.799 60 0.5 60 2 0.1 15 0.1 15 0.156 15 0.179 15 0.1 15 0.1 15 0.168 15 0.273 15 0.160 15 0.1 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 5 0.075 5 6 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 75 100 3 1.4 60 1.3 60 3.909 60 4.480 60 1.8 60 2.2 60 4.202 60 6.836 60 3.994 60 2.2 60 1 0.5 15 0.49 15 0.782 15 0.896 15 0.5 15 0.5 15 0.840 15 1.367 15 0.799 15 0.5 15 7 0.083 10 0.083 10 0.130 10 0.149 10 0.083 10 0.083 10 0.140 10 0.228 10 0.133 10 0.083 10 Step 12. Determine Gradation from plot Shaded boxes means these values were changed to meet the requirements from the references listed below. References cited and listed in Appendix G D50 base 0.05 0.05 0.34 0.49 0.06 0.07 0.30 0.49 0.29 0.07 D50 Fine Filter 0.41 0.40 0.64 0.74 0.41 0.41 0.69 1.12 0.66 0.41 D50 Course Filter 1.20 1.12 3.21 3.68 1.51 1.82 3.46 5.62 3.28 1.82 Nelson eqn 4.35 3.61 4.95 0.03 0.06 3.88 2.72 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.86 Cedergren eqn 5.3 24.56 24.69 9.45 7.48 24.78 24.48 11.34 11.44 11.23 24.34 Nelson eqn 4.36 3.61 4.95 0.03 0.06 3.88 2.72 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.86 E3-A W5-B W8-A W8-B Sandy Clay Random Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill W8-AW5-B W9-B Sandy Clay Random Fill W8-B W9-BW2-B W5-AE3-A E5-B E8-B W2-A E5-B Sandy Clay Random Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill Clay Random Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill Sandy Clay Random Fill E8-B W2-A W2-B W5-A Course Design Band (Lower) Fine Design Band (Upper) Filter Transtion Design_NRCS(7-6-12):2012 Fine-Grained Material Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS Apron Protection Source: Abt, SR, Johnson, TL, Thornton, CI, and Trabant, SC, Riprap Sizing at Toe of Embankment Slopes, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 7, July 1998. Equation: D50=10.46*S^0.43*qd^0.56 Apron C: Cell 2 Northern Side Slope Apron B: Cell 4A Southern Side Slope Apron A: Non- Accumulating Slopes West unit discharge (cfs/ft) 0.64 0.86 0.06 0.06 Cr 1 1 1 1 Cf 3 3 3 3 Cm 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.35 design discharge (cfs/ft) 2.61 3.49 0.25 0.25 Slope (ft/ft) 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 D50 Angular (in) 9.0 10.5 2.4 2.4 D50 Rounded (in)12.5 14.8 3.4 3.4 Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Apron Protection Attachment G.2 Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project: White Mesa Reclamation Plan Date: 7/28/2012 Detail: Erosion Protection Computed By: TMS Interstitial Velocities - Apron 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. Description Non- Accumulating Side Slopes - Rounded Cell 1 Disposal Area Side Slope - Angular Cell 4A Flow Path 2 Southern Side Slope - Angular Minimum D50 (inches) 3.18 8.96 10.54 from Safety Factor Method, or Abt/Johnson Method, assuming rounded rock Minimum D10 (inches) 0.74 2.09 2.46 from preliminary gradation specs Maximum D10 (inches) 0.99 2.79 3.28 from preliminary gradation specs Slope (ft/ft) 0.01 0.01 0.01 from preliminary design Min Velocity (ft/s) 0.11 0.19 0.20 calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on Min D10 Max Velocity (ft/s) 0.13 0.22 0.24 calculated from Abt et al. (1991) based on Max D10 Underlying filter required?No No No Per NUREG 1623, Appendix D, section 2.1.1 Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Apron Interstitial Velocity Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Reclaimation Date:7/28/2012 Detail:Erosion Protection Computed By:TMS Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) Source : Clyde et al. (1978) as presented in NUREG 4620, section 5.1.2 A=R*K*LS*VM Topsoil Rock Mulch Percent silt and very fine sand 43.6 32.7 Percent sand (0.10-2.0 mm)39.2 29.4 Percent organic matter 1.5 1.5 Soil structure Number 2 3 Permeability 3 2 Inputs for LS factor Slope length (ft) 1400 1200 slope steepness (%) 0.5 0.82 m exponent 0.2 0.2 Table 5.2 of NUREG 4620 Topsoil Rock Mulch R Rainfall Factor 30 30 K Soil Erodibility factor 0.28 0.12 From nomograph Fig. 5.1 of NUREG 4620 LS Topographic factor 0.16 0.19 VM Dimensionless erosion control factor 0.4 0.4 From Table 5.3 of NUREG 4620 for seedings, 0-60 days A Soil Loss (tons/acre/year) 0.54 0.27 A Soil density (pcf)100 100 A Soil Loss (inches/1000 years)3.0 1.5 Inputs for K factor From Table 5.1 of NUREG 4620 for eastern third of Utah Erosion Protection(7-26-12):Soil Loss Equation Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Mill Date:8/14/2012 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) riprap:Flow-PMP2 Attachment G.2 Client:Denison Job No.: 1009740 Project:White Mesa Mill Date:8/14/2012 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) riprap:Time of concentration Attachment G.2 Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project: White Mesa Mill Date:8/2/2012 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 Copy of channel sizing:8 (3) Attachment G.2 Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project: White Mesa Mill Date:8/14/2012 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 Copy of channel sizing:8 (6) Attachment G.2 Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project: White Mesa Mill Date:8/2/2012 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. Copy of channel sizing:Sheet1 Attachment G.2 ATTACHMENT D SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 06/1: REVISED APPENDIX E, SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS, TO THE UPDATED TAILINGS COVER DESIGN REPORT (APPENDIX D OF RECLAMATION PLAN, REVISION 5.0) SLO APP OPE STA PENDIX E BILITY A Update E ANALYSIS ed Tailings Co S over Design RReport Denison M E.1 IN This app cells at th located a according geotechn analyses Division o Slope st compute of safety Janbu’s Lowe-Ka (Morgens performin shear su E.2 C Slope st condition reclamat with a 5H conserva A critical the south overall im the slope in Figure The phre analyses A second Cell 1 Di The loca Disposal was ass analyses Slope sta circular f analyses surfaces surfaces ines Corp. NTRODUCT pendix prese he Denison approximate g to applic nical stability s presented of Radiation ability analy r program S y by any of t Simplified, ( arafiath, and stern and P ng the com rfaces and s CRITICAL CO tability anal ns for post-re ion were ev H:1V slope, ative shear s cross sectio heast corne mpoundmen e stability an e E.1. The ta eatic surface s. d cross sect isposal Area ation of cros Area will in umed to be s. ability analys failure surfa s were cond through the were analyz TION ents the meth Mines (USA ely 6.0 mile cable stabil y criteria in N in MWH (2 Control (DR yses were p SLOPE/W (G the following (4) Spencer, d (8) Gene Price, 1965) putations in satisfies both ONDITIONS lyses are t eclamation. valuated and (2) existing strength para on, cross se r of the imp t height as nalyses pres ailings are p e was there ion, cross se a. This loca ss section B nclude mill d e fully drain ses were pe aces for bot ucted by ta e clay liner s zed in order hods, input A) Corp.’s (D es south of lity criteria NRC (2003). 011) to inco RC) interrog performed u GEO-SLOPE g methods: , (5) Morgen eralized Lim with a half- SLOPE/W. h moment an S AND GEO typically con For the Whit d included: g inside surf ameters bas ection A, was oundment. well as base ented in Tita planned to b efore estima ection B, wa ation was ch B is shown debris and c ed and the erformed by th static and rgeting both system were to calculate E-1 and results Denison) Wh Blanding, U under sta These ana orporate rev gatories (DR using limit e E, 2007). Th (1) Ordinar nstern-Price mit Equilibri sine functio . The meth nd force equ METRY nducted for te Mesa Mill (1) reclaime faces of the sed on previo s selected th The cross e topograph an (1996). T be dewatere ated to be o as selected t hosen to add in Figure E contaminated refore a ph calculating d pseudo-st h shallow an e evaluated f e the factor o Update of slope sta hite Mesa Ur Utah. These tic and se alyses are an visions to th RC, 2012). equilibrium m he SLOPE/W ry Fellenius , (6) U.S. A um. The on for inter-s hod uses bo uilibrium. r scenarios l tailings cell ed outside s e embankme ous reports. hrough the s section loca hy and is sim The location ed prior to p one foot abo through the dress DRC .2. The m d soils. The hreatic surfa factors of sa tatic conditio nd deep fail for cross se of safety for t ed Tailings Co ability analys ranium Mill ( e analyses eismic cond n update to t e analyses methods wit W program c , (2) Bishop Army Corps o Morgenste slice forces oth circular that repre ls, critical co surfaces of t ents with a southern dik ation was se milar to the n of cross se placement o ove the line northern em interrogatori material plac e embankme ace was not afety along ons. Circula ure surfaces ection B. A n the critical fa over Design R MWH America Augus ses of the ta (Mill). The M were condu ditions, inclu the slope sta to address th the aid o calculates fa p’s Simplified of Engineer rn-Price me was selecte and non-cir esent the c onditions for the embank 2H:1V slope e of Cell 4A elected base location use ection A is s of the final c er system fo mbankment o ies (DRC, 2 ced in the C ent cross se t included in circular and ar failure su s. Block fa number of fa ailure. Report as, Inc. st 2012 ailings Mill is ucted uding ability Utah of the actors d, (3) s, (7) ethod ed for rcular critical post- kment e; (3) A near ed on ed for hown cover. or the of the 2012). Cell 1 ection n the non- urface ailure ailure Denison M E.3 M Material presente historical and Ass testing c and typic summari Erosion embankm values fo material Lambe (1 material the 2012 based on the estim Effective of 33 deg percent angle of Cover S geotechn the rand potential each laye contents cover ma 2012 lab internal f and no c Tailings tests (Ch long-term dry dens tailings w analyses with silt a using the density s internal f the Cell 4 Contami include c have sim ines Corp. MATERIAL P strength pa ed in Deniso l laboratory ociates, 198 conducted in cal publishe zed in Table Protection ment slopes or sand and strength pa 1969) for loo mixed with 2 laboratory t n 25% grave mated dry d strength pa grees and n (listed in th internal frict System: The nical site inv om fill laye cover borro er. The tota for the cove aterials were boratory test friction prese ohesion. Material: T hen and As m density of ity. This is was calculate s. Based on and some c e Naval Des silty sand. T friction of 25 4B design st inated Soils contaminate milar properti PROPERTIE arameters u n (2009) for testing on ta 87; D’Appol n 2010 and ed values. e E.1. : The erosi , and rock m gravel were arameters w ose to medi 25 percent g testing resu el by weight ensity and t arameters of no cohesion e specificat ion presente e cover syst vestigation in ers were es ow materials al unit weight er layers use e estimated t results and ented in Hol The dry dens ssociates, 19 the tailings the same de ed using the existing ope lay. The str sign Manua The strengt 5 degrees) a tability analy s/Mill Debr d soils and ies as the c ES sed for the r the Cell 4B ailings and c onia, 1982; 2012 on po The param ion protectio mulch on the e used for t were estimat um dense s gravel by we lts for topso t. The total the long-ter f the rock m , based on ions), and u ed in Holtz (1 tem materia n April 2012 timated usin s (see Appe ts for the cov ed in the rad based on t d using the tz (1981), re sity of the ta 987 and We is at 85 per ensity used e long-term w erations at t rength param l for Soil M h paramete are consiste yses. ris: The m mill debris. cover soils. E-2 slope stab B slope stab clay material and Weste otential cove meters for ea on materials e top surfac the riprap an ted based o sand and gra eight. The d il (see Appe unit weight m water co ulch were e a maximum using the ge 1981). al properties . The total ng 2010 an endix A.2) a ver layers w don analyse the maximum generalized esulting in a ailings was e estern Colo rcent of the for the rado water conten he site, the meters of th echanics DM rs used for ent with the aterials to b . The conta The mater Update bility analysis bility analyse ls (Advance ern Colorado er borrow m ach materia include ripr ce of the co nd filter mat on the lowe avel. The ro density of th endix A.2) an of the rock ntent prese estimated as plasticity in eneralized r were estim unit weight v nd 2012 lab and based o were calculat es. Effective m measured d relationsh n angle of in estimated as orado Testin average lab on analyses. nts assumed tailings depo e tailings we M7-01 (NAV the tailings values pres be placed i aminated so rial propertie ed Tailings Co s are based es conducte ed Terra Tes o Testing, 1 aterials (see al are discu rap and filte ver system. terials. The r bound typ ock mulch c he rock mulc nd applying mulch was nted in the s an angle o ndex (PI) of relationship mated based values used boratory test on the com ted using the e strength pa d PI (30) fro ip between nternal frictio s 90 pcf, bas ng, 1999) an boratory mea . The total u d for the tail osits are pri ere conserv VFAC, 1986 (no cohesio sented in De n the Cell oils will be f es for the co over Design R MWH America Augus d on param ed by Geosy sting, 1996; 1999), labor e Appendix ussed below er material o Typical de e riprap and pical values consists of to ch was base a rock corre calculated radon anal of internal fr the topsoil between P d on the upd d in the mod ts conducte paction effo e long-term w arameters fo om the 2010 PI and ang on of 29 deg sed on labor nd assuming asured maxi unit weight o ings in the r marily fine s vatively estim 6) as 0% re on and an a enison (2009 1 Disposal from on-site ontaminated Report as, Inc. st 2012 meters yntec, Chen ratory A.2), w and n the ensity filter from opsoil ed on ection using yses. riction of 10 I and dated el for ed on ort for water or the 0 and gle of grees ratory g the imum of the radon sands mated lative angle 9) for Area e and soils Denison M and mill 85 perce Clay Lin based on Testing, compact and a lon on 15 ba presente average percent p internal f and no c Dike and material of Cell 4 based on 4A and 4 Bedrock due to th propertie R R R C C C R T C C D F B E.4 S Stability horizonta ines Corp. debris were ent standard ner: Cell 1 n laboratory 1996) and ion. The to ng-term wate ar water cont ed in Titan ( measured P passing the friction prese ohesion. d Foundatio were estima 4B by Geosy n laboratory 4B (Denison, k: Failures a he relatively es for the bed Riprap Riprap Filter Rock mulch Cover Upper Cover Middle Cover Lower Random Fill ailings Contaminated Clay Liner Dike oundation Bedrock SEISMIC AN analyses un al accelerati e conservativ Proctor com will be lined y tests perfo assuming t tal unit weig er content of tents measu (1996). Th PI (60) of sam No. 200 sie ented in Hol on: Density ated as the yntec (Denis testing resu , 2009). are not antic high streng drock were m Table E. Materia Layer (85% e Layer (95% Layer (80% d Soils/Mill D ALYSIS AN nder seismic on or seism vely assume mpaction). d with a clay ormed on Se he clay will ght for the c f 14 percent red for Sect e strength mples meeti eve, and the tz (1981), re y and streng values pres son, 2009). ults from sam cipated to oc gth of the un modelled as 1. Material al SP compac % SP compa SP compac Debris ND SEISMIC conditions w mic coefficie E-3 ed to be the y liner. The ection 16 cla be compac clay was cal . The long-t tion 16 clay s parameters ing the place e generalize esulting in a gth paramet ented in sta The streng mples obtain ccur within th nderlying sed s those cons Parameters To W ction) ction) ction) CITY were conduc nt is applied Update same as th e dry densit ay (D’Appol cted to 95 lculated usin term water c samples by for the clay ement speci ed relationsh n angle of in ters for the ability analys gth paramet ned from the he bedrock dimentary ro istent with s s Used in M otal Unit Weight (pcf) 125 125 110 107 120 100 100 95 107 110 137 137 130 cted as pse d to both c ed Tailings Co he cover soi ty of the cla onia, 1982; percent of s ng the estim content was Chen and A y were esti fications for hip between nternal frictio existing fou ses performe ters used in e existing be underlying t ock. Theref sedimentary Model Cohesion (psf) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 900 900 10000 udo-static a ross-section over Design R MWH America Augus ls (compact ay was estim Advanced T standard Pr mated dry de estimated b Associates (1 mated using r minimum P n PI and ang on of 24 deg ndation and ed for the de the model erm between the embankm fore, the ma rock. Internal Friction Angle° 36 30 33 29 29 29 29 25 29 24 26 26 45 nalyses, wh ns. This se Report as, Inc. st 2012 ted to mated Terra roctor ensity based 1987) g the PI and gle of grees d dike esign were n Cell ment, aterial ere a eismic Denison M coefficien coefficien conducte the Maxi embankm is provide A liquefa results i materials is analyz horizonta 1979). T the desig at the sit coefficien design a represen reclaimed analysis E.5 D The resu values re surfaces Cr Cross Cell 4 Cross Cell 1 As show recomme model p condition ines Corp. nt represent nt of 0.1 g w ed for the sit mum Credib ment. A sum ed as Attach action analys ndicate the s that do not zed by a p al acceleratio The seismic gn earthquak te (typically nt as a frac and docume nts the pos d conditions is 0.10g (eq DISCUSSION ults of stabili epresent th for a Morge ross-Sectio s Section A - A Embankm s Section B – Embankme wn in Table ended value profile figure ns are shown s the horizo was used for te (MWH, 20 ble Earthqua mmary of the hment E.1 to sis was con e tailings ar t liquefy or l pseudo-stati on or seismi coefficient r ke, and is re at the base ction of the ented in DO t-reclamatio s to be 0.15 ual to 2/3 of N OF STABI ity analyses e lowest ca enstern-Price Table E n Fai Ty - ment Sha Circ De Circ – ent Sha Circ De Circ Bl E.2, all ca es of 1.5 fo es and SLO n in Figures ntal accelera the analyse 012). This s ake (MCE) e site seism o this append nducted for re not susc ose shear s c approach c coefficient represents a epresented a e of the stru PGA has b OE (1989). n condition 5g. The sei f the PGA). ILITY ANAL for Cross-s alculated fac e Analysis. E.2. Slope S ilure ype allow cular Ps eep cular Ps allow cular Ps eep cular Ps ock Ps alculated fac r static con OPE/W out E.3 through E-4 ations applie es based on seismic coeff calculated t icity is provi dix, for ease the tailings ceptible to strength with h. This co t to the struc an inertial for as a fraction ucture). Th been adopte A seismic s. MWH smic coeffic LYSIS RESU section A an ctor of safe Stability An Loading Condition Static seudo-Static Static seudo-Static Static seudo-Static Static seudo-Static Static seudo-Static ctors of saf nditions and tput figures E.14. Update ed on the st the most rec ficient repre to occur dur ided in the M e of reference and is pres earthquake h seismic sh onsists of a cture being a rce due to s n of the pea he strategy ed in review coefficient o (2012) esti cient used fo ULTS nd B are pre ety from a nalysis Resu Requ Facto Safe 1.5 c 1. 1.5 c 1. 1.5 c 1. 1.5 c 1. 1.5 c 1. fety were s 1.1 for pse s for static ed Tailings Co ructure by a cent seismic sents the se ring the long MWH (2012 e. sented in A e-induced liq aking, seism application o analyzed (de strong groun k ground ac of represen w of uranium of 2/3 of th imated the or the pseu esented in T number of ults uired ors of ety C 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 5 1 significantly eudo-static and pseud over Design R MWH America Augus an earthquak c hazard ana eismic loadin g-term life o ). This docu Appendix F. quefaction. mic slope sta of an equiv escribed in S d motions d cceleration (P nting the se m tailings fa he PGA typ mean PGA do-static sta able E.2. T individual fa Calculated Factors of Safety 3.20 2.03 3.83 2.56 3.10 1.96 3.24 2.07 3.41 2.14 above the conditions. do-static loa Report as, Inc. st 2012 ke. A alysis ng for of the ument The For ability valent Seed, during PGA) eismic acility pically A for ability These ailure NRC The ading Denison M E.6 R Advance Campbel M E Chen an R D’Appolo D N Denison R R C GEO-SLO Holtz, R. P Lambe, T Morgens G MWH Am M MWH Am M M Naval Fa Nuclear R R U.S. Dep D N U.S. Geo S co ines Corp. REFERENCE d Terra Tes ll, K.W. and Mean Horizon Earthquake E nd Associate Report prepa onia Consult Data, White Nuclear, Inc. Mines (US Response to Round 1 inte Calculation P OPE Interna .D. and Kov Prentice-Hall T.W. and Wh tern, N.R., a Geotechnique mericas, Inc Mines (USA) mericas, Inc Mesa Uraniu Mines (USA) acilities Engi Regulatory Reclamation Radiation Co partment of E DOE/AL 050 New Mexico. ological Surv Seismic Haza onterminous ES ting (1996). d Bozorgnia ntal Compon Engineering es, Inc., 19 ared for Ener ting Enginee Mesa Urani on 8 March A) Corporat Division of errogatory, C Package. Ja ational Ltd, 2 vacs, W.D., , 1981. hitman, R.V. and V.E. Pric e, Vol. 15, p c. (MWH), 2 Corp. Sept . (MWH), 20 m Facility, B Corp. May 3 neering Com Commission Plan for the ntrol Act.” N Energy (DO 0425.0002, U vey (USGS), ard Maps Pr s12008/. Ma Physical so a, Y., 2007. nent of Peak Research C 987. Physica rgy Fuels Nu ers, Inc. (19 um Project, 1982. tion (Deniso Radiation C Cell 4B Des nuary 9. 2007. Slope/ 1981. An In ., 1969. Soil ce, 1965. Th p. 79-93. 2011. Upda tember. 012. Site-Sp Blanding, Ut 30. mmand (NAV n (NRC), 20 e Mill Tailing NUREG-162 E), 1989. T Uranium Mi , 2008. Eart rogram (NSH ay. E-5 oil data, Whi NGA Groun k and Spectr Center Repor al Soil Data uclear, Inc. 982), Letter Blanding, U on), 2009. Control (“DR sign, Exhibit /W, Version ntroduction t Mechanics. he Analysis ated Tailings pecific Proba tah. Techni VFAC), 1986 003. “Stan gs Sites Un 0. Division o Technical Ap ill Tailings R thquake Haz HMP). http:// Update te Mesa Pro nd Motion R ra Ground M rt. 2007/02 a, White Me Report, Se Utah, Repor Cell 4B Lin RC”) Reques t A, Geosyn 7.17, Calga to Geotechn . New York: of the Stabi s Cover Des abilistic Seis ical memora 6. Soil Mech dard Review nder Title II of Waste Ma pproach Doc Remedial A zards Progra /earthquake. ed Tailings Co oject, Blandi Relations fo Motion Param , 246 p. esa Project, ection 16 Cl rt prepared f ning System st of Addition ntec Slope S ry, Alberta. nical Enginee John Wiley lity of Gener sign. Prepa smic Hazard andum prepa hanics Desi w Plan for of the Uran anagement, cument, Rev Action Proje am: United S .usgs.gov/ha over Design R MWH America Augus ng Utah, Jul or the Geom meters. In P , Blanding ay Material for Energy F m Design Re nal Informat Stability Ana ering. New & Sons, 196 ral Slip Surfa ared for De d Analysis, W ared for De ign Manual 7 the Review nium Mill Ta June. vision II, UM ct, Albuque Stated Natio azards/produ Report as, Inc. st 2012 ly 25. metric Pacific Utah, Test Fuels eport, tion – alysis York: 69. aces. nison White nison 7.01. of a ailings TRA- erque, nal ucts/ Denison M Utah De D R Western C ines Corp. partment of Denison Mine Round 1. Ma Colorado Te Cell 2 and Ce Environme es (USA) Co arch. esting, Inc., ell 3, Prepare ntal Quality, orp’s White 1999. Repo ed for Intern E-6 , Utah Divis Mesa Recla ort of Soil Sa national Uran Update sion of Radi amation Plan ample Testi nium (USA) ed Tailings Co ation Contro n, Rev. 5.0, ng of Tailing Corporation over Design R MWH America Augus ol (DRC). 2 Interrogato gs Collected . May 4. Report as, Inc. st 2012 2012. ries - from L;\D.,i~n-Drott"'~\Cli.nh-A-H\DE:~SON MKS\013-Sh••\50\\201i-08-26 COVR DS~REP\1009740 SLCPE 200 FT FIGURE E.1 1009740SLOPE o e MWH DATE AUG 2012 FLE NAME SCALE LEGEND: -5605 -GROUND SURFACE CONTOURAND ELEVATION FROM 2007L1DARSURVEY,FEET FINAL COVER SURFACE-5605 -ELEVATION (TOP OF EROSIONPROTECTION LAYER). FEET 200 ooo cii NN w SLOPE STABILITY CROSS SECTION A LOCATION WHITEMESAMILL TAILINGSRECLAMATION 5612 ~ ~=-------+ TITLE PROJECT CELL4A OENISOJ)J J MINES Denison Mines (USA)Corp \ N 10,161,000 J CELL 1 KEY MAP NOT TO SCALE 1 ~ 1 AREASHOWNLAT RIGHT CELL4B 1- ) N 10 ,162 000 - PROJECT Cross Section A on Cell 4A Slope Stability Analysis Model Profile TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.3 White Mesa Mill Reclamation AUG 2012 AppendixE Slope StabilityResults.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section A on Cell 4A Slope Stability Analysis Static Conditions - Deep Circular TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.4 White Mesa Mill Reclamation AUG 2012 AppendixE Slope StabilityResults.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section A on Cell 4A Slope Stability Analysis Pseudo-Static Conditions - Deep Circular TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.5 White Mesa Mill Reclamation AUG 2012 AppendixE Slope StabilityResults.pptx Denison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section A on Cell 4A Slope Stability Analysis Static Conditions - Shallow TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.6 White Mesa Mill Reclamation AUG 2012 AppendixE Slope StabilityResults.pptx Denison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section A on Cell 4A Slope Stability Analysis Pseudo-Static Conditions - Shallow TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.7 White Mesa Mill Reclamation AUG 2012 AppendixE Slope StabilityResults.pptx Denison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section B on Cell 1 Slope Stability Analysis Model Profile TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.8 CAÑON CITY MILLING FACILITY AUG 2012 Appendix E Slope Stability Results.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section B on Cell 1 Slope Stability Analysis Static Conditions - Deep Circular TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.9 CAÑON CITY MILLING FACILITY AUG 2012 Appendix E Slope Stability Results.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section B on Cell 1 Slope Stability Analysis Pseudo-Static Conditions - Deep Circular TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.10 CAÑON CITY MILLING FACILITY AUG 2012 Appendix E Slope Stability Results.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section B on Cell 1 Slope Stability Analysis Pseudo-Static Conditions - Shallow Circular TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.11 CAÑON CITY MILLING FACILITY AUG 2012 Appendix E Slope Stability Results.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section B on Cell 1 Slope Stability Analysis Pseudo-Static Conditions - Shallow Circular TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.12 CAÑON CITY MILLING FACILITY AUG 2012 Appendix E Slope Stability Results.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section B on Cell 1 Slope Stability Analysis Static Conditions - Block TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.13 CAÑON CITY MILLING FACILITY AUG 2012 Appendix E Slope Stability Results.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp PROJECT Cross Section B on Cell 1 Slope Stability Analysis Pseudo-Static Conditions - Block TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE E.14 CAÑON CITY MILLING FACILITY AUG 2012 Appendix E Slope Stability Results.pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp ATTA MW ACHMENT E WH (2012) Update E.1 ed Tailings Coover Design RReport TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Harold Roberts DATE: May 30, 2012 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. FROM: Eileen M. Dornfest, P.G. REFERENCE: 1009740 REVIEWED BY: Thomas E. Kelley, P.E. SUBJECT: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis White Mesa Uranium Facility Blanding, Utah 1.0 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this memorandum is to report the results of a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis conducted to develop seismic design criteria for the Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison) White Mesa uranium mill (Site). This memorandum has been prepared in response to Interrogatory 05/1: Seismic Hazard Evaluation for the Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC) Interrogatories on the White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0 (DRC, 2012) for the Denison Site, wherein it was requested that an updated site-specific probabilistic seismic analysis be performed and reported in lieu of using USGS National Hazard Maps for developing seismic design parameters. Previous seismic hazard analyses were conducted for the design of the Cell 4A and 4B facilities (MFG, Inc. 2006; Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech), 2010), and are attached to this memorandum as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively. The regional physiographic and tectonic setting of the site, as well as regional seismicity have been discussed in previous reports (Umetco, 1998; MFG, Inc. 2006; Tetra Tech, 2010; Denison, 2011). This information is not reiterated herein. The Site is located approximately 6 miles south of Blanding Utah, at approximately 37.5° N latitude and 109.5° W longitude. 2.0 DESIGN CRITERIA Different seismic criteria have been established for short-term operational and long-term reclaimed conditions of the tailings cells at the Site. The projected operational lifetime of the most recently constructed tailings cell at the Site is estimated to be approximately 50 years, from the time of construction through the time when the cell will have been dewatered and reclaimed. The design life for the reclaimed facility is required to be 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable, and at least 200 years, per the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (EPA 40 CFR 192) and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (NRC 10 CFR Appendix A to Part 100 A). Previous seismic hazard analyses for the Site evaluated PGAs for operational conditions (MFG, 2006) and long-term reclaimed conditions (Tetra Tech, 2010). Harold Roberts, Denison Mines Corporation May 30, 2012 Page 2 of 5 The seismic design criteria for operational conditions were evaluated previously by MFG (2006) using both deterministic and probabilistic approaches. In their probabilistic analysis, MFG selected a PGA with an average return period of 2,475 years as the probabilistic design earthquake. MFG used United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps available at the time to estimate the seismic event with a return period of 2,475 years. The use of a 2,475-year return period in formulating the probabilistic operational design criteria is considered conservative as this event has a 2-percent probability of exceedance over the anticipated 50-year operational design life. Tetra Tech (2010) subsequently evaluated the seismic design criteria for reclaimed tailings cells. As discussed above the reclaimed tailings cells are assumed have a design life of 200 to 1,000 years. Tetra Tech also used both deterministic and probabilistic approaches in evaluating the seismic design criteria. Tetra Tech selected an average return period of 9,900 years as appropriate for determining the probabilistic seismic design criteria. The PGA with a 9,900 year return period was estimated for the Site based on data from the USGS 2008 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program (NSHMP) PSHA Interactive Deaggregation website. The use of a 9,900-year return period in formulating the probabilistic design criteria for reclaimed conditions is considered conservative as this event has a 2 percent probability of exceedance during a 200-year period and a less than 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 1,000-year period. The updated site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analyses described in this memorandum incorporates the conservative return periods assumed by MFG (2006) and Tetra Tech (2010) for operational and long-term design, respectively, in order to maintain consistency with previous probabilistic seismic hazard analyses for the Site. 3.0 REGIONAL SEISMICITY A review of historic earthquakes that have occurred within 200 miles (322 km) of the Site was performed to update information provided by Tetra Tech (2010). Several earthquake databases were evaluated to develop an earthquake record for an area with a 200 mile radius of the Site, including earthquakes from 1700 to May 14, 2012. This record provides a general overview of the seismicity near the Site. Catalogs from the USGS National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program (NSHMP) for the Western United States (WUS) and Central and Eastern United States (CEUS) (Petersen et al., 2008) were reviewed to compile information on the historic earthquakes. Since attenuation relations, completeness, and magnitude-conversion rules all vary regionally, Petersen et al. (2008) built two catalogs: a moment- magnitude (Mw) catalog for WUS and a body-wave-magnitude (Mb) catalog for the CEUS. The final database includes historical seismic events from 1700 through 2006. Events are limited to those with a magnitude greater than or equal to 4.0. This database contains 86 events that occurred within 200 miles (322 kilometers) of the Site. Historical earthquake information from the WUS and CEUS catalogs was supplemented by an additional search of the National Earthquake Information Center (NEIC) database, also maintained by the USGS. This search was conducted for the time period of January 1, 2007 through May 14, 2012 and resulted in 2 additional earthquakes. NEIC earthquakes were limited to those with a magnitude of 4.0 or greater within 200 miles of the site, in order to be consistent with the WUS and CEUS catalogs. Figure 1 shows the locations and magnitudes of the earthquakes with magnitudes of 4.0 or greater that were identified within a 200 mile radius of the Site. The earthquakes generally had small magnitudes, Harold Roberts, Denison Mines Corporation May 30, 2012 Page 3 of 5 and more than 70 percent of the events had a magnitude less than 5.0. Only 2 percent of the events had a magnitude greater than 6.0. Figure 1 shows that earthquake activity within a 200-mile (322 km) radius of the site is diffuse, with the exception of the western edge of the study area, which lies within the Intermountain Seismic Belt. A tabulated list of historic earthquakes greater than magnitude 4.0 within a 200 mile radius of the Site is included in Attachment 3. In order to supplement the evaluation of earthquakes with a Mw or Mb greater than 4.0, an evaluation of low magnitude events (greater than or equal to 2.4) was also conducted using the NEIC database for locations within 80 miles (129 km) of the site. These events are shown in Figure 2 and are tabulated in Attachment 3. The largest historical earthquake event within 200 miles of the Site is estimated to have had a magnitude of 6.5. This event occurred approximately 164 miles southeast of the site, near the town of Richfield, Utah on November 11, 1901. The event closest to the Site had a magnitude of 4.0 and occurred on August 22, 1986, approximately 59 miles west of the Site. 4.0 SITE-SPECIFIC PROBABILISTIC SEISMIC HAZARD The site-specific seismic hazard was evaluated probabilistically by using the USGS 2008 NSHMP PSHA Interactive Deaggregation website (https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/). As part of its 2008 National Seismic Hazard Mapping project, the USGS performed a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis of the entire United States, using information compiled by Petersen et al. (2008). The web- based PSHA program provides estimates of the deaggregated seismic hazard at specific spectral periods for the conterminous United States. The spectral period equal to 0.0 seconds is the PGA. The program incorporates regional seismicity data including background earthquakes (unassociated with faults), earthquakes associated with faults, fault characteristics, and regionally-appropriate attenuation relationships. The average shear wave velocity for the top 30 meters below the ground surface at the site (Vs30) is an input variable to the PSHA program. MWH checked Tetra Tech’s calculation of Vs30 for the uppermost 100 feet of soils and bedrock underlying the site. The drilling logs by Tetra Tech (2010) and Dames and Moore (1978) were used to obtain information about the subsurface conditions at the site (Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts, bedrock descriptions, and depths of auger refusal) and to calculate values of Vs for the soils and estimate values of Vs for the bedrock materials within 100 feet of the ground surface. The average value of SPT blow counts for the silty sand and soil material encountered in the top 30 feet of the Tetra Tech boring is 59 (Tetra Tech, 2010). Using information in Sykora (1987) (eqs.20, 21 and Table 4 eq. 8) values of Vs30 were calculated to range from approximately 660 feet/second (ft/s) to 990 ft/s (approximately 200 to 300 meters/second (m/s)). This is also consistent with information presented in Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 10, and Table 8 of Sykora (1987). Based on the bedrock descriptions presented in the drilling logs by Dames and Moore (1978) to a maximum depth of 140 feet, the estimated seismic velocity for the remaining 70 feet of generally well- cemented sandstone with minor interbedded claystone, siltstone and conglomerate, is estimated to range from 800 to 1,000 m/s. A weighted average of seismic velocity for the upper 100 feet below the Site was calculated to range from approximately 620 m/s to 700 m/s. This seismic velocity correlates with materials characterized as Site Class D – Stiff Soil/Soft Rock by both the IBC and NEHRP. The NSHMP 2008 PSHA Interactive Deaggregation web site limits input values of Vs30 to either 760 m/s or 2,000 m/s. These seismic velocities correspond to Site Class BC (intermediate between dense Harold Roberts, Denison Mines Corporation May 30, 2012 Page 4 of 5 soil and rock) and Site Class A (hard rock), respectively. The input value for Vs30 chosen for the Site was 760 m/s. The Interactive Deaggregation program was used to calculate the site-specific PGA for operational and reclaimed conditions at the Site. As stated previously, the PGA associated with a 2,475 year return period was chosen to represent the operational conditions at the facility and the PGA associated with a 9,900 year return period was chosen to represent the reclaimed facility conditions. The PGA calculated for the operational lifetime of the facility is 0.07g as shown on Figure 3. The PGA calculated for the long-term conditions is 0.15g as shown on Figure 4. The USGS PSHA program provides the deaggregation of ground-motion hazard for specific probability levels or return periods. The deaggregation provides the percentage contributions to the site-specific seismic hazard for the range of magnitudes and distances used in the PSHA. The USGS plots of the deaggregated hazard at the Site for the 2,475 and 9,900 year return periods are shown on Figures 3 and 4 respectively. Figure 3 indicates that earthquakes contributing to the aggregate probabilistic hazard at the 2,475-year-return-period level had a mean distance of 87.3 km (53 miles) from the Site and a mean magnitude of 5.8. Earthquakes contributing to the probabilistic hazard at the 9,900-year- return period level had a mean distance of 51.5 km (31.3 miles) from the Site and a mean magnitude of 5.8, as shown on Figure 4. As a result, it is recommended that a magnitude 6 earthquake be used, in conjunction with the PGAs described above, in seismic analyses at the Site. Figures 5 and 6 show the response spectra for the design events for the operational and long-term conditions, respectively. This information was obtained from the USGS PSHA program. Attachment 4 contains text output of the deaggregated seismic hazard from the PSHA program. 5.0 CONCLUSIONS Results of the PSHA conclude the mean PGA for operational conditions is estimated to be 0.07g. This PGA is associated with an average return period of 2,475 years and has a 2 percent chance of exceedance in the anticipated 50 year operational design life of the cells. The mean PGA for reclaimed conditions is estimated to be 0.15g. This PGA is associated with an average return period of 9,900 years, which for a design life of 200 to 100 years, has a probability of exceedance of 2 percent to 10 percent, respectively. The probabilistic hazard at the Site is associated with a mean earthquake magnitude of 6. REFERENCES Dames and Moore, 1978. Site Selection and Design Study - Tailing Retention and Mill Facilities, White Mesa Uranium Project. January 17. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah. Revision 5. September. MFG, Inc. 2006. White Mesa Uranium Facility, Cell 4 Seismic Study, Blanding, Utah. November 27. Petersen, M.D., Frankel, A.D., Harmsen, S.C., Mueller, C.S., Haller, K.M., Wheeler, R.L., Wesson, R.L., Zeng, Y., Boyd, O.S., Perkins, D.M., Luco, N., Field, E.H., Wills, C.J., and Rukstales, K.S. Harold Roberts, Denison Mines Corporation May 30, 2012 Page 5 of 5 2008. Documentation for the 2008 Update of the united States National Seismic Hazard Maps. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008-1128. Sykora, D.W. 1987. Examination of Existing Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus Correlations in Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Miscellaneous Paper GL-87-22. September. Tetra Tech, Inc. 2010. Technical Memorandum: White Mesa Uranium Facility, Seismic Study Update for a Proposed Cell, Blanding Utah. February 3. UMETCO. 1988. Cell 4 Design, Appendix A, White Mesa Project Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Utah Division of Radiation Control (DRC). 2012. Denison Mines (USA) Corp’s White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0, Interrogatories - Round 1. March Attachments: Figures Attachment 1: White Mesa Uranium Facility, Cell 4 Seismic Study, Blanding Utah (MFG, Inc. 2006) Attachment 2: Technical Memorandum re: White Mesa Uranium Facility, Seismic Study Update for a Proposed Cell, Blanding Utah (Tetra Tech, Inc. 2008) Attachment 3: Tabulated Lists of Historical Earthquakes Near the White Mesa Mill. Attachment 4: US Geological Survey PSHA Deaggregation Data FIGURES ~SALT LAKE CITY~"---LEGEND --------.>:----------®--INTERSTATE .107 -------<,-§-u.s.HIGHWAY ~U T A -:<, <,DENVER STATE BORDER «43 -,EARTHQUAKES 22 25 .14 ~•MAGNITUDE 4.0-4.9 .20 .49 3 • 0 MAGNITUDE 5.0-5.9 92 30 \•MAGNITUDE 6.0-1;.9 108 6 C a L ~R A a 200 EARTHQUAKE 10NUMBER .46 «36.26 11 \ MOAB NOTES: •\~1 44 .104 .200 1. ONLY EVENTS OF MAGNITUDE > 4.0 AND GREATER ARE SHOWN. I .193 \2. EARTHQUAKE RECORD: 1700 - .15 MAY 14. 2012 \ W .42 .31 MONTICELLO.\ WHITE MESAMILL I PUEBLO Z I .64 I J -I'~~I t:2J -11~6' .148 / 230 " .220 I N E W LAS VEGAS" ;.216 •51 M/E X I C a4.55 ~.198 GALLUP .232 /SANTA FE ~ ~/ ~/ l FLAGSTAFF "'" au A R I Z ALBUQUERQUE ~~.-/ -,~~ i ..------ »>--------SCALE p -i --ae I""""'""""'i22.5 22.5 50 MILES f PROJECT ~OENISOJ)JJ (OJ)i WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION MWH ~ me< ! MINES HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES Denison Mines (USA) Corp ocr " WITHIN 200 MILES MAY2012 FIGURE 1 FILENAME QUAKEDATA_DM FIGURE 2 QI.h\KE o.o.TAeoMILEB «D>MWH SCALE Fll£w.ME ""n:MAY 2012 LEGEND EARTHQUAKES •MAGNITUDE 2.0-2.9 •MAGNITUDE3.0-3.9 •MAGNITUDE 4.0-4.9 300 EARTHQUAKE ID NUMBER NOTES: 1. ONLY EVENTS OF MAGNITUDE 2.4 AND GREATER ARE SHOWN. 2. EARTHQUAKE RECORD: 1973 - MAY 14, 2012 -§-u.s.HIGHWAY -8-STATEHIGHWAY ---STATE BOROER o HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES WITHIN 8D MILES D 0 WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION PROJECT w cI E X A MONTROSE -----... •G N E gENISOJ)~~ MINES Denison Mines (USA) Corp L M oc - MONTICELLO L"G ~ WHITE MESA MILL 333 334 337 .305 .303 307 324308 / / 8~,,~~~y.304 / / H I / ! I I \ \ \ \ AT \.338 \ \-.-. I Z 0 N ~<,8 GD 8 <, ------------ u A~~ ~~~ i11--------"---~=----------------.£...-------!....---...l...-___r------~~------.JL-,...-----~ t""L..------l..--====::..::.::..:=--L-~===___..E::::::===:J . ~s USGS DEAGGREGATION OF EARTHQUAKEHAZARD FOR 2,475 YEAR RETURN PERIOD FIGURE 3 DEAGG 2475 YRP WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION Denison Mines (USA) Corp MAY 2012 USGS DEAGGREGATION OF EARTHQUAKEHAZARD FOR 9,900 YEAR RETURN PERIOD FIGURE 4 DEAGG 9901 YRP WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION Denison Mines (USA) Corp MAY 2012 Sp e c t r a l A c c e l e r a t i o n ( g ) USGS SPECTRAL RESPONSE2,475 YEAR RETURN PERIOD FIGURE 5 SPECTRAL 4275 Y RETURN WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION Denison Mines (USA) Corp MAY 2012 Sp e c t r a l A c c e l e r a t i o n ( g ) USGS SPECTRAL RESPONSE9,900 YEAR RETURN PERIOD FIGURE 6 SPECTRAL 9901 Y RETURN WHITE MESA MILL TAILINGS RECLAMATION Denison Mines (USA) Corp MAY 2012 ATTACHMENT 1 WHITE MESA URANIUM FACILITY, CELL 4 SEISMIC STUDY, BLANDING, UTAH MFG, INC., 2006 November 27, 2006 MFG Project No. 181413x.102 Mr. Harold R. Roberts International Uranium (USA) Corporation 1050 Seventeenth Street, Suite 950 Denver, CO 80265 Subject: White Mesa Uranium Facility Cell 4 Seismic Study Blanding, Utah Dear Mr. Roberts: This document has been prepared to examine the seismicity of the White Mesa site and to recommend a design peak ground acceleration (PGA) to be incorporated in the Cell 4A design. This letter addresses concerns brought forth in comments by Utah Department of Environmental Quality (UDEQ) as documented in Interrogatory IUC R313-24-4-05/05: Dike Integrity. Comments in Interrogatory IUC R313-24-4-05/05 Comments from UDEQ state that the seismic loading used (0.10 g) for stability analysis of the Cell 4A slopes is based on an outdated seismic analysis presented in the 1988 Cell 4 Design Report (UMETCO), and that updated seismic hazard analysis should be performed. As stated in the Interrogatory 05, it is not thought that there is any new information on active faults that would impact the hazard at White Mesa. However, UDEQ requested ground motion attenuation relationships be updated to reflect current evaluation methods. Original Design Basis for Cell 4 This original design report for Cell 4 (UMETCO, 1988), characterized the geologic conditions at the site. Section 1.3.4 identified potential earthquake hazards to the project. The specified hazards include minor random earthquakes not associated with a known seismic structure, and an unnamed fault located 57 km north of the project site (north of Monticello), with a fault length well defined for 3 km, and possibly as long as 11 km. The fault is considered a suspected Quaternary fault, but does not have strong evidence for Quaternary movement. Estimates of the maximum credible earthquake (MCE) associated with this fault were estimated to have a magnitude of 6.4 based on relationships developed by Slemmons in 1977. Ground motions at the project site were estimated using attenuation curves established in 1982 by Seed and Idriss. Peak horizontal accelerations at the site from the fault were estimated to be 0.07 g. MFG, Inc. A TETRA TECH COMPANY Fort Collins Office 3801 Automation Way, Suite 100 Fort Collins, CO 80525 970.223.9600 Fax: 970.223.7171 Mr. Harold R. Roberts November 27, 2006 Page 2 L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.1 Reports\6.1.2 Other Reports (by others)\Tetra Tech - Seismicity Report\SeismicLetterReport Final.doc Updated attenuation relationships A search of the Quaternary Fault and Fold Database (USGS 2006) lists Shay graben faults as a Class B (suspected) Quaternary fault. No other faults within 50 km of the site are included in the database. Shay graben faults were included in the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) report. Other faults considered as possible seismic sources include the unnamed fault north of Monticello that was the design basis of the design accelerations in the 1988 report. Many attenuation relationships have been developed within the last ten years and are currently being used to estimate ground motions. Three relationships are used in this report to estimate the peak ground motion at the White Mesa site. Abrahamson and Silva (1997) is a well accepted relationship used for shallow crustal earthquakes in Western North America. In addition, Spudich et al. (1999) is used because it has been specifically developed for extensional tectonic regimes, such as those encountered in the area of the site. Campbell and Bozorgnia (2003), is also examined as a current, applicable model, which accounts for normal faulting. In all cases, mean values plus one standard deviation are reported. A comparison of the three methods can be found in Table 1. Design Peak Ground Acceleration for Cell 4 The above discussion is based on the PGA associated with MCE predicted for a known tectonic feature, and as such, cannot be correlated to a specific return period. 10 CFR 100 Appendix A and 10 CFR 40 Appendix A of Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations are interpreted to apply to long-term, reclaimed impoundments. A distinction should be made between seismic conditions that apply to operational conditions versus long-term conditions. Disposal areas are required to demonstrate closure performance that provides control of radiological hazards to be effective for one thousand years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years. However, this standard should not apply to the operational time- period of the disposal cell. In 2002, the USGS updated the National Seismic Hazard Maps (NSHM), which show peak ground and spectral accelerations at 2 percent and 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. From these maps, the PGA for the White Mesa site is shown to be 0.090 g with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years. The probability of exceedance can be represented by the following equation: )/(1 TnePE−−= Where PE = probability of exceedance, n = time period, in years, and T = return period, in years. It can be shown that the return period associated with a PGA of 0.090 g is equivalent to 2,475 years, and if the life of the project is conservatively taken to be 100 years, the probability of exceedance of 0.090 g is approximately 4 percent. Therefore, the PGA taken from the USGS maps is an appropriate design acceleration to use for operational conditions of the disposal cell. Conclusions The seismic loading of 0.1 g used in analysis of the Cell 4A dikes exceeds the PGA associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance within 50 years, and is appropriate for the operational life of the disposal cell. At the time when design of closure is implemented, design PGA based on the MCE associated with known or suspected Quaternary features and the background seismicity of the area should be incorporated into the design long-term seismic loading. Mr. Harold R. Roberts November 27, 2006 Page 3 L:\Denison Mines\6.0 Studies & Reports\6.1 Reports\6.1.2 Other Reports (by others)\Tetra Tech - Seismicity Report\SeismicLetterReport Final.doc References Abrahamson, N.A., and W.J. Silva (1997). Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow crustal Earthquakes, Seismologcal Research Letters, Vol. 68, No. 1, pp. 94-127, January/February. Campbell, K.W., and Y. Bozorgnia (2003). Updated Near-Source Ground-Motion (Attenuation) Relations for the Horizontal and Vertical Components of Peak Ground Acceleration and Acceleration Response Spectra, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93, No. 1, pp. 314-331, February. Spudich, P., W.B. Joyner, A.G. Lindh, D.M. Boore, B.M. Margaris, and J.B. Fletcher (1999). SEA99: A Revised Ground Motion Prediction Relation for Use in Extensional Tectonic Regimes, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 89, No. 5, pp. 1156-1170, October. UMETCO, 1988. Cell 4 Design, Appendix A, White Mesa Project. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 2002. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database: http://Qfaults.cr.usgs.gov/. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, TETRA TECH COMPANY MFG, INC. Roslyn Stern Senior Staff Geotechnical Engineer Reviewed by: Thomas A. Chapel, CPG, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer cc: Tetra Tech EMI Ms. JoAnn Tischler Attachment(s) Table 1: Peak Ground Accelerations – White Mesa Name Fault Length (km) Fault Type1 Site Class2 Distance from site (km) MCE (Wells and Coppersmith, 1994) PGA Mean plus 1 SD (Spudich et al., 1999) PGA Mean plus 1 SD (Abrahamson and Silva, 1997) PGA Mean plus 1 SD, Campbell- Bozorgnia 2003 PGA Mean plus 1 SD average unnamed fault north of Monticello, defined length 3.0 N R 57.4 5.49 0.034 0.027 0.037 0.032 unnamed fault north of Monticello, possible total length 11.0 N R 57.4 6.23 0.050 0.059 0.055 0.055 unnamed fault north of Monticello, 1/2 total rupture 5.5 N R 57.4 5.84 0.041 0.039 0.044 0.041 Shay graben faults (Class B) 40.0 N R 44.6 6.97 0.096 0.116 0.113 0.108 1Fault Type: N = Normal 2Site Class: R =Rock or shallow soils ATTACHMENT 2 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM RE: WHITE MESA URANIUM FACILITY, SEISMIC STUDY UPDATE FOR A PROPOSED CELL, BLANDING UTAH TETRA TECH, INC., 2010 ['11;)TETRA TECH Technical Memorandum 380I AutomationWay Suite 100 Fort Collins CO 80525 TeI 970.223.9600 Fax 970.223.7171 www.tetratech.com To:Mr. Harold R.Roberts Heather Trantham,Ph.D., P.E. From:Senior Staff Geotechnical Engineer Company:Denison Mines (USA) Corp 1050 Seventeenth Street,Suite 950 Denver,CO 80265 Date:February 3, 2010 Reviewed by: Re:White Mesa Uranium Facility Seismic Study update for a Proposed Cell Blanding ,Utah Project #:114-182018 Introduction 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 109.5QW,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 (-n:)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 Siernmons in 1977. Ground motions at the project site were estimated using attenuation curves established in 1982 by Seed and Idriss.Peak horizontal acce lerations 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 acce leration (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 0.1g 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 appea rs 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 eve nt 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. accelerations for the five most significant earthquakes on the list were discussed below. Seismic Hazard Analysis The peak ground calculated and are 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 10,000-year return period is adopted for evaluating long-term stability of the facility.The probability that the 10,000-year event will be exceeded within a 200- to 1,ODD-year design life is between 2 3 (-n:)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: 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 (v,)used for the deaggragation calculation 586 m/s which corresponds to 1923 1Vs. 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 IVs.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 IVs).For the remaining 69', a shear wave velocity of 760 m/s (2493 flls) corresponding to sandstone was chosen.The weighted average of the shear wave velocity for the top 100 It was 586 m/s (1923 flls).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 (Me)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 1991a, pg.26), and Grand Junction (DOE 1991b,pg.7 1).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 ('"R::)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),Idriss (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 rnagnitude of these earthquakes was not perforrned 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 rnagnitude of 6.3 is used to account for the floating earthquake at the White Mesa site. The results for attenuation relations as calculated using Carnpbell 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 (1't:)TETRA TECH Table1 .Peak Ground Accelerations for White Mesa Fault Distance Name Length Fau lt Site from Site MCE(3)PGA(4)Type!')Class(2) (km)(km) Unnamedfault north of Monticello (possible 3.0 N R 57.4 5.49 0.038extensionof Shays graben) defined length 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 0.049extensionof Shays oraben)Y2 total rupture Shay graben faults 40.0 N R 44.6 6.97 0.090.(Class Bl Earthquake on 2/21/54 -- -70 4.7 0.012fromEPBcatalog Earthquake on 1/30/89 ---147 5.4 0.011fromPOEcatalog Earthquake on 2/3/95 - --139 5.3 0.011fromPOEcataloc Earthquake on 10/11 /77 -- -74 4.7 0.011from POEcataloo Earthquake on 10/11 /60 ---189 5.5 0.01fromSRAcatalog Floatinq Earthquake ---15 6.3 0.243 (1)Fault Type:N=Normal (2) Site Class:R =Rock or shallowsoils (3) Wells andCoppersmith,1994 (4)Campbe ll and Bozorgnia NGA,2007 Conclusion 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.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 multip lied 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 the previous analysis for the site. 6 (-n:)TETRA TECH References 40 CFR 192.U.S .Environmental Protection Agency,"Health and Environmental Protection Standards for Uranium and T horium Mill Tailings." Abrahamson,N.A.,Silva,W.J.(1997) Empirical Response Spectral Attenuation Relations for Shallow Crustal Earthquakes.Seismological Research Letters 68(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,KW .and Bozorgnia Y.(2006) Carnpbell-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 Report 2007/02,246 p. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy (1991a)Remedial Action Plan and Final Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings at Green River,Utah. DOE (U.S.Department of Energy)(1 991b)Remedial Action Plan and Site Design for Stabilization of the Inactive Uranium Mill Tailings Site at GrandJunction,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.RegulatoryGuide 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 (-n:)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 Interplate 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://earthguake.usgs.gov/hazards/productsiconterminousi2008/ UMET CO (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 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 FORCAMPBELL-BOZO RGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008,EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA); ExplanatorvVariables Geometric Mean and Arbitrary HorizontalComponents ,'\1 GMP T (s)Median a o ,'"'""_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 RRUP 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"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 F"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 F••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 0.622£ 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 0.22£0 0.6432 0.6817 3.0 1.221E-03 0.0000 0.5580 0.3260 0.2290 0.6463 0.6856 0 4.0 6.337E-04 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.6481 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 00000 0.6280 0.4280 0.2710 0.7600 0.8069V,.10.0 9.719E-05 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0,2900 0.8247 0.8742 586 PGA(g)0 2.221E-02 I -0.0065 0.4761 0.2190 0.1660 0.5241 0.5497 ~ Zu PGV (cIs)-,1.063E+00 0.0000 0.4840 0.2030 0.1900 0.5248 0.5582 000 PGD(cm)-2 2.413E-01 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 Calculated Variables A 1100 1.803E-02 DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS; SOlo-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectrum 10 ~_ :§ c.ge•..0.1cu"i!;;•~ '" 0.01 Period (s) 100.1 0.001 -I---'--'...Ll.l.J.il1-_..L...L..Ll.l.lllj-_L..JL.L.LLUlj 0.01 =Pseudo-absoluteacceleration response spectrum (g: 5%damping) =Peak ground acceleration (g) =Peak ground velocity (cmfs) =Peak ground displacement (em) =Moment magnitude =Closest distance to coseismicrupture (km) =Closest distance to surface projection of coseismic rupture (km) =Reverse-faulting factor;0 for strike slip, normal.normal-oblique:1 for reverse.reverse-oblique and thrust =Normal-faulting factor; 0 for strikeslip,reverse,reverse-obliqueand mrust. 1 for normal and normal-oblique =Depth to top of coseismic rupture (km) =Average dip of rupture plane (degrees) =Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site profile PGA on rock with Vs30 =1100 mfs (g) =Depth of 2.5 kmfs shear-wave velocityhcnzon [krn] PSA PGA PGV PGO M RRVP R" F" F•• Z rolls V~o A 1100 Z 2.' Unnamed fault possible extention of Shays graben defined length 3.0 km 5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectrum CAl CUATIONOF GROUNDMOTION FOR CAMPBEl l -BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008,EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA): Explanatory Variables Geometric Mean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components M GMP T(s)Median a o r u,u,U~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 R RUP 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 0.6114 R"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.Q178 0.5271 0.2600 0.1600 0.5969 0.6234 0.20 9.283E-02 -0.0111 0.5310 0.2490 0.1860 0.5665 0.6153 F",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 0.5629 0.6182 F."0.50 5.644E--Q2 0.0000 0.5500 0.2140 0.2060 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 ZroR 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 6 4.0 2.737E-03 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.6481 0.6900 60 5.0 2.043E--Q3 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,.10.0 5.024E-04 0.0000 0.6670 0.4650 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 586 PGA(g)0 3.622E-02 I -0.0104 0.4750 0.2190 0.1660 0.5230 0.5487 ~ Z2.~PGV (cis).,2.365E+00 0.0000 0.4840 0.2030 0.1900 0.5248 0.5582 0.00 PGD (em)-2 1.247E+00 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 Calcu lated Variables A mlO 2.952E-02 DEFINITIONOF PARAMETERS: 10 0.01 1\ PSA PGA PGV PGD " ::Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g: 5%damping) '"Peakground acceleration (g) ::Peakground velocity (cmls) =Peak ground displacement (cm) ::Moment magnitude ::Closest distance to coseismic rupture (km) =Closest distance to surtace projectionotcoseismic rupture (km) ::Reverse-faulting factor:0 for strike slip. normal,normal-oblique; 1 for reverse,reverse-oblique and thrust ::Normal-faulling factor:0 for strike slip,reverse,reverse-oblique and thrust; 1 for normal and normal-oblique ::Depth to lop of coseismic rupture (km) ::Average dipof rupture plane (degrees) ::Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m otsite profile ::PGA on rock withVs30 ::1100 mls (g) ::Depth of 2.5 kmls shear-wave velocity horizon (km) 0.001 0.01 0.1 Period (5) 10 Unnamedtault possibleextention ofShays graben total possible length 11.0 km 5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectrum CALCUATION OF GROUND MOTION FOR CAMPBELL·BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008,EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA); Explanatory Variables Geometric Mean andArbitrary Horizontal Components M GMP T {s) Median a U <Uc U,U~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 f/u P 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"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 0.6159F.,0.25 6.299E-02 -0.0039 0.5330 0.2400 0.1910 0.5845 0.6149 0 0.30 5.726E-02 -0.000 1 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 F."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 zr»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 Ii 4.0 1.268E-03 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.6481 0.6900 60 5.0 8.600E-04 0.0000 0.6010 0.3590 0.2370 0.7001 0.1391 7.5 3.784E·04 0.0000 0.6280 0.4280 0.2710 0.7600 0.8069 v,~10.0 2.114E·04 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 586 PGA {g)0 I 2.807E.Q2 I -0.0081 0.4756 0.2190 0.1660 0.5236 0.5493 ~ Z2,S PGV (cIs ) .,1.554E+00 0.0000 0.4840 0.2030 0.1900 0.5248 0.5582 0.00 PGO (em)·2 5.249E-01 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 Calculated Variables A n oo 2.283E·02 DEFINITION OF PARAMETER S: 10 0.1 0.01 1\ PSA PGA PGV PGO M R RUP R"F., F." Zro.s V~. A"""Zu '"Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g: 5% damping) '"Peak ground acceleration (g) '"Peakgroundvelocity (cmls) '"Peak ground displacement (em) '"Moment magnitude '"Closest distance to coseismic rupture (km) '"Closest distance to surface projection 01coseismic rupture (km) '"Reverse-faulting tactor:0 for strike slip,normal.normal-oblique:1 for reverse.reverse -oblique and thrust '"Normal·faulting factor:0 torstrike slip,reverse,reverse-oblique and thrust; 1 lor normal and normsr-obnque '"Depth to top 01coseismic rupture (km) '"Average dip of rupture plane (degrees) '"Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site profile '"PGA on rock with Vs30 '"1100 mfs (g) '"Depth 012.5 kmfsshear-wave velocity horizon(km) 0.001 0.01 0.1 Period (s) 10 Unnamed fault possible extenucn of steve graben 1/2 lotal ruplure 5.5 km 10 5%-Oamped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Respon se Spectrum CALCUATIONOF GROUND MOTIONFOR CAMPBELL·BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008, EARTHQUAK ESPECTRA): Explanatory Variable s GeometricMean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components "GMP T (s)Median a a <a ,a,a_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 R RUP 0.030 5.516E-02 -0.0184 0.4837 0.2350 0.1650 0.5376 0.5625 57.40 0.050 6.428E-02 -0.0285 0.5018 0.2580 0.1620 0.5642 0.5870 0.D75 7.926E-02 -0.0333 0.5107 0.2920 0.1580 0.5883 0.6092 R"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 F"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 0.6182F,.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.ססOO 0.5680 0.2550 0.2250 0.6226 0.6620 Z TOR 1.5 2.641E-02 0.0000 0.5640 0.2960 0.2220 0.6370 0.6745 3.00 2.0 1.814E-02 0.0000 0.5710 0.2960 0.2260 0.6432 0.6817 3.0 1.123E-02 0.ססOO 0.5580 0.3260 0.2290 0.6463 0.6856 0 4.0 8.208E-03 0.0000 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.6481 0.6900 60 5.0 6.640E-03 0.ססOO 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 30 10.0 2.128E-03 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 586 PGA (g)0 5.192E-02 I -0.0148 0.4737 0.2190 0.1660 0.5219 0.5477 ~ Z 2.S PGV{c/s)-,5.196E+00 0.0000 0.4840 0.2030 0.1900 0.5248 0.5582 0.00 PGD(cm)·2 6.442E+OO 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 Calcu lated Variables A1100 4.252E-02 DEFINITIONOF PARAMETEFlS: § c0.~ •..0.1uc'"~13•0.oo 0.01 /'f- "1\ PSA PGA PGV PGO 1\1 R RUP R" F" F•• Z ro.s V~. A1100 Zu =Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g:5%damping) =Peak ground acceleration (g) =Peak ground velocity (cm/s) =Peak ground displacement(em) =Moment magnitude =Closest distance to coseismicrupture (km) =Closest distance to surface projection of coseismic rupture (km) Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strikeslip.normal.normal-oblique:1 for reverse.reverse-oblique and thrust =Normal-faulfing factor:0 lor strike slip,reverse,reverse-oblique and thrust:1for normal and normal-oblique =Depth totop of coseismic rupture (km) =Average dip of rupture plane (degrees) =Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m of site profile =PGA on rock with Vs30 =1100 mls (9) =Depth of 2.5 kmls shear-wavevelocity nortzon (km) Shay graben faults (Class B)40.0 km 0.001 0.01 0.1 Period (5) 10 CALCUATION OF GROUND MOTION FOR CAMPBELL-BOZORGNIA NGA MODEL (MAR 2008,EARTHQUAKE SPECTRA): Explanatory Variables GeometricMean and Arbitrary Horizontal Components M GMP T (s)Median a o r u ,u ,U_Medi an 6.30 PSA (g)0.010 1.409E·Ol -0.0372 0.4673 0.2190 0.1660 0.5161 0.5421 + sigma 0.020 l.434E-Ol -0.0383 0.4690 0.2190 0.1660 0.5176 0.5436 R RUP 0.030 1.540E-Ol -0.0461 0.4757 0.2350 0.1650 0.5306 0.5557 15.00 0.050 1.889E-01 -0.0707 0.4898 0.2580 0.1620 0.5536 0.5768 0.075 2.503E·Ol -0.0825 0.4973 0.2920 0.1580 0.5767 0.5979 R"0.10 3.092E-01 -0.0813 0.5090 0.2860 0.1700 0.5838 0.6081 15.00 0.15 3.840E·01 -0.0634 0.5149 0.2800 0.1800 0.5861 0.6131 0.20 3.923E-01 -0.0399 0.5234 0.2490 0.1860 0.5796 0.6087 F"0.25 3.5l9E-Ol -0.0182 0.5293 0.2400 0.1910 0.5811 0.6117 0 0.30 3.l80E-Ol -0.0003 0.5439 0.2150 0.1980 0.5849 0.6175 0.40 2.6l4E-Ql 0.0000 0.5410 0.2170 0.2060 0.5829 0.6182 F."0.50 2.138E-Ql 0.0000 0.5500 0.2140 0.2080 0.5902 0.6257 0.75 1.278E-01 0.0000 0.5680 0.2270 0.2210 0.6117 0.6504 1.0 8.480E-02 0.0000 0.5680 0.2550 0.2250 0.6226 0.6620 ZroR 1.5 4.485E-02 0.0000 0.5640 0.2960 0.2220 0.6370 0.6745 3.00 2.0 2.844E-02 0.0000 0.5710 0.2960 0.2260 0.6432 0.6817 3.0 1.581E-02 0.0000 0.5580 0.3260 0.2290 0.6463 0.6856s4.0 1.061E-02 0.ססOO 0.5760 0.2970 0.2370 0.6481 0.6900 60 5.0 8.060E-03 0.0000 0.6010 0.3590 0.2370 0.7001 0.7391 7.5 3.546E-03 0.0000 0.6280 0.4280 0.2710 0.7600 0.8069 V,.10.0 1.982E·03 0.0000 0.6670 0.4850 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 566 PGA(g)0 I 1.409E-01 I -0.0372 0.4673 0.2190 0.1660 0.5161 0.5421 ~ Z 2.5 PGV(cJs)·1 8.793E+00 0.0000 0.4640 0.2030 0.1900 0.5248 0.5582 0.00 PGO (em)·2 4.919E...00 0.0000 0.6670 0.4650 0.2900 0.8247 0.8742 Calculated Variables A 1100 1.183E-01 DEFINITION OF PARAMETERS: 5%-Damped Pseudo-Absolute Acceleration Response Spectrum 10 ~_ 0.,_ 0. 01 11II.. PS. PG' PGV PGO M R RVP R"F., F." Z roRs V~ A 1100 Z2.5 Pseudo-absolute acceleration response spectrum (g: 5%damping) Peak ground acceleration (g) Peak ground velocity (cm/s) '" Peak ground displacement(cm) '" Moment magnitude '" Closest distance 10coseismic rupture (km) '" Closest distance to surface projection of coseismic rupture (km) '"Reverse-faulting factor: 0 for strikeslip,normal.normal-oblique;1 for reverse,reverse-oblique and thrust '"Normal-faulting factor:0 for strike slip,reverse,reverse-oblique and thrust: 1 for normal and normal-oblique '" Depth to top of coseismic rupture (km) '"Average dip of rupture plane (degrees) '"Average shear-wave velocity in top 30m ofsite profile '"PGA on rock with Vs30 ""1100 mfs (9) ==Depth of 2.5 kmls shear-wavevelocity horizon (km) 0.001 0.01 0.1 Period(s) 10 Floating Earthquake -Conservative Assorrotion ATTACHMENT 3 TABULATED LISTS OF HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES NEAR THE WHITE MESA MILL ATTACHMENT 3.1 HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES WITH MAGNITUDE 4.0 OR GREATER WITHIN A 200-MILE RADIUS OF WHITE MESA MILL Catalog ID Number Magnitude Longitude (degrees east) Latitude (degrees north)Date CEUS 3 5.0 -107.5 39 9/9/1944 CEUS 4 5.0 -109.5 35.7 1/17/1950 CEUS 6 4.3 -110.163 38.997 7/30/1953 CEUS 11 5.5 -107.6 38.3 10/11/1960 CEUS 14 4.6 -110.33 39.44 4/24/1963 CEUS 15 4.5 -111.22 38.1 9/30/1963 CEUS 20 4.0 -110.29 39.36 11/4/1964 CEUS 22 4.5 -110.35 39.44 1/14/1965 CEUS 25 4.1 -110.36 39.44 7/30/1966 CEUS 26 4.2 -107.6 38.3 9/4/1966 CEUS 30 4.4 -107.51 38.98 1/12/1967 CEUS 31 4.1 -107.86 37.67 1/16/1967 CEUS 36 4.5 -107.75 38.32 4/4/1967 CEUS 42 4.0 -108.31 37.92 2/3/1970 CEUS 43 4.3 -107.31 39.49 1/7/1971 CEUS 46 4.0 -108.68 38.91 11/12/1971 CEUS 49 4.4 -108.65 39.27 1/30/1975 CEUS 51 4.6 -108.212 35.817 1/5/1976 CEUS 55 4.2 -108.222 35.748 3/5/1977 CEUS 56 4.0 -107.31 39.31 9/24/1977 CEUS 84 4.0 -110.574 37.42 8/22/1986 CEUS 92 5.5 -110.869 39.128 8/14/1988 CEUS 104 4.4 -107.976 38.151 9/13/1994 CEUS 107 4.2 -108.925 40.179 3/20/1995 CEUS 108 4.3 -110.878 39.12 1/6/1996 WUS 134 5.7 -112.522 37.047 12/5/3787 WUS 138 6.5 -112.084 38.769 11/14/1901 WUS 139 4.3 -112.639 38.279 7/31/1902 WUS 144 5.0 -113.007 38.393 4/15/1908 WUS 146 5.0 -112.15 38.683 1/10/1910 WUS 148 5.5 -111.5 36.5 8/18/1912 WUS 158 6.3 -112.15 38.683 9/29/1921 WUS 162 5.0 -112.827 37.842 1/20/1933 WUS 165 5.0 -112.1 36 1/10/1935 WUS 169 4.3 -112.958 37.25 5/9/1936 WUS 171 4.3 -112.433 37.822 2/18/1937 WUS 174 4.3 -111.65 39.58 6/4/1942 WUS 175 5.0 -113.066 37.683 8/30/1942 WUS 177 4.3 -112.26 38.58 11/3/1943 WUS 178 5.0 -111.987 38.765 11/18/1945 WUS 181 4.3 -111.637 39.263 11/4/1948 WUS 186 5.0 -111.9 38.5 11/18/1950 WUS 190 4.3 -112.433 37.822 10/22/1953 WUS 193 5.0 -107.3 38 8/3/1955 WUS 195 4.3 -111.833 39.711 11/28/1958 WUS 196 5.0 -112.5 38 2/27/1959 Table 1: Historical Earthquakes with Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within a 200-Mile Radius of White Mesa Mill 1 of 2 Catalog ID Number Magnitude Longitude (degrees east) Latitude (degrees north)Date WUS 197 5.5 -112.5 37 7/21/1959 WUS 198 5.0 -111.5 35.5 10/13/1959 WUS 199 5.0 -111.66 39.34 4/16/1961 WUS 200 4.7 -107.6 38.2 2/5/1962 WUS 201 4.5 -112.4 36.9 2/15/1962 WUS 202 4.4 -112.9 37 2/15/1962 WUS 203 4.5 -112.1 38 6/5/1962 WUS 206 4.3 -111 40 9/7/1962 WUS 208 5.0 -111.91 39.53 7/7/1963 WUS 209 4.0 -111.19 40.03 7/9/1963 WUS 212 4.1 -112.85 37.97 1/18/1965 WUS 215 4.1 -111.85 37.98 5/20/1966 WUS 216 4.4 -111.6 35.8 10/3/1966 WUS 219 4.2 -112.3 38.8 6/22/1967 WUS 220 4.2 -111.6 36.15 9/4/1967 WUS 221 5.5 -112.157 38.543 10/4/1967 WUS 222 4.1 -112.21 38.75 6/18/1969 WUS 227 4.4 -112.17 38.65 1/3/1972 WUS 228 4.0 -112.07 38.67 6/2/1972 WUS 230 4.5 -106.17 36.09 3/17/1973 WUS 231 4.2 -111.43 39.1 7/16/1973 WUS 232 4.1 -107.74 35.26 12/24/1973 WUS 233 4.2 -111.5 39.15 10/6/1975 WUS 238 4.3 -111.62 35.17 12/6/1981 WUS 239 4.0 -112.04 38.71 5/24/1982 WUS 243 4.4 -112.009 39.236 3/24/1986 WUS 245 5.3 -111.62 38.829 1/30/1989 WUS 246 4.0 -112.257 35.952 3/5/1989 WUS 250 4.2 -112.355 35.96 3/14/1992 WUS 252 4.4 -111.554 38.783 6/24/1992 WUS 253 4.0 -112.219 35.982 7/5/1992 WUS 256 5.3 -112.112 35.611 4/29/1993 WUS 257 4.3 -112.327 38.078 9/6/1994 WUS 258 4.1 -112.223 35.964 4/17/1995 WUS 260 4.9 -112.52 38.225 1/2/1998 WUS 262 4.2 -112.49 37.97 6/18/1998 WUS 263 4.2 -112.727 38.077 10/22/1999 WUS 264 4.1 -112.56 38.73 2/23/2001 WUS 265 4.3 -111.521 38.731 7/19/2001 WUS 266 4.4 -111.857 39.516 4/17/2003 NEIC 270 4.6 -112.34 38.247 1/3/2011 NEIC 271 4.2 -112.089 37.811 4/12/2012 Table 1: Historical Earthquakes with Magnitude 4.0 or Greater Within a 200-Mile Radius of White Mesa Mill (continued) Notes: 1) Earthquakes are sorted by date of occurrence. 2) ID Numbers correlate to those shown on Figure 1. 3) WUS = Western United States (Petersen et al., 2008) 4) CEUS = Central & Eastern United States (Peterson et al., 2008) 5) NEIC = National Earthquake Information Center 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT 3.2 HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKES WITH MAGNITUDE 2.4 OR GREATER WITHIN AN 80-MILE RADIUS OF WHITE MESA MILL Catalog ID Number Magnitude Longitude (degrees east) Latitude (degrees north)Date PDE 303 3.1 -110.542 37.511 9/10/1981 PDE 304 3.2 -110.592 38.288 5/3/1983 PDE 305 2.7 -110.409 37.556 8/4/1983 PDE 307 3.2 -110.561 37.429 5/14/1986 PDE 308 4.0 -110.574 37.42 8/22/1986 PDE 309 2.5 -108.118 37.635 9/9/1987 PDE 310 3.1 -108.924 38.473 5/13/1989 PDE 311 3.0 -110.358 37.209 6/25/1991 PDE 315 3.0 -108.827 38.268 4/10/1998 PDE 316 3.6 -108.921 38.293 6/3/1999 PDE 317 3.5 -108.859 38.319 7/6/1999 PDE 318 2.9 -108.907 38.31 9/16/1999 PDE 319 2.9 -108.88 38.27 10/11/1999 PDE 320 2.9 -108.81 38.24 11/4/1999 PDE 321 3.3 -108.867 38.367 3/15/2000 PDE 322 4.3 -108.859 38.341 5/27/2000 PDE 323 3.2 -108.93 38.34 6/6/2002 PDE 324 3.0 -110.53 37.41 9/26/2002 PDE 325 2.9 -110.56 38.324 12/29/2003 PDE 326 4.1 -108.915 38.236 11/7/2004 PDE 328 2.9 -108.91 38.26 8/7/2005 PDE 329 2.8 -108.98 38.38 8/1/2007 PDE 330 3.7 -109.47 37.36 6/6/2008 PDE 331 2.6 -110.68 37.15 9/7/2008 PDE 332 2.8 -110.56 38.332 2/19/2009 PDE 333 3.0 -110.45 37.66 3/31/2009 PDE 334 2.9 -110.42 37.65 4/14/2009 PDE 335 2.6 -108.98 38.37 4/19/2009 PDE 336 2.5 -108.914 38.258 4/30/2009 PDE 337 2.7 -110.44 37.64 6/9/2009 PDE 338 3.3 -110.77 37.01 7/13/2009 PDE 339 2.9 -108.87 38.36 11/17/2009 PDE-W 340 2.5 -110.17 37.15 1/18/2011 PDE-Q 341 2.7 -109.69 38.45 3/6/2012 Table 2: Historical Earthquakes with Magnitude 2.4 or Greater Within a 200-Mile Radius of White Mesa Mill Notes: 1) Earthquakes are sorted by date of occurrence. 2) ID Numbers correlate to those shown on Figure 2.3) More information about the PDE catalogs can be found on the USGS website: 4) <http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/egarchives/epic/code_catalog.php> 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT 4 US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PSHA DEAGREGGATION DATA ATTACHMENT 4.1 US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEAGGREGATION DATA 2,475 YEAR RETURN PERIOD Page 1 of 14 ***Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard at One Period of Spectral Aceel.*** ***Data from U.S.G.B.National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project,2008 version *** PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison_white_M long:109.500 W.,lat:37.500 N. Vs30(m/s)=760.0 (some was atten.models use Site Class not Vs30). NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128.dM=0.2 below Return period:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Cornputed_Rate_Ex O.40BE-03 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=O.00709 #This deaggregation corresponds to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 12.3 4.60 1.228 0.039 32.2 4.61 2.149 0.330 62.6 4.61 0.484 0.433 88.9 4.62 0.102 0.102 12.4 4.80 2.193 0.064 32.9 4.80 4.709 0.543 63.0 4.81 1.346 0.995 89.4 4.81 0.372 0.372 114.0 4.82 0.190 0.190 12.6 5.03 1.542 0.041 33.9 5.03 4.328 0.350 63.7 5.04 1.738 0.859 89.8 5.04 0.632 0.626 117.8 5.05 0.528 0.528 12.7 5.21 0.580 0.015 34.6 5.21 1.968 0.125 64.1 5.21 0.998 0.316 90.0 5.21 0.425 0.370 119.5 5.21 0.443 0.443 12.8 5.39 0.870 0.021 35.3 5.40 3.478 0.182 64.6 5.40 2.189 0.458 90.1 5.40 1.080 0.586 120.8 5.41 1.352 1.278 165.3 5.41 0.252 0.252 12.8 5.61 0.422 0.010 36.0 5.61 2.019 0.086 65.1 5.62 1.640 0.216 90.3 5.62 0.955 0.276 121.8 5.62 1.401 0.941 167.6 5.62 0.389 0.389 12.9 5.80 0.369 0.009 36.4 5.80 1.966 0.074 62.6 5.79 1.448 0.136 86.5 5.82 1.630 0.288 122.5 5.81 2.005 0.890 168.6 5.81 0.684 0.672 216.8 5.82 0.122 0.122 13.5 6.01 0.314 0.007 36.8 6.01 1.402 0.046 59.8 6.01 1.230 0.072 85.2 6.01 1.772 0.197 123.0 6.01 2.334 0.573 170.3 6.01 0.928 0.724 218.4 6.02 0.231 0.231 16.4 6.20 0.473.0.011 37.8 6.22 1.256 0.038 60.2 6.21 1.356 0.066 85.3 6.22 2.101 0.173 123.5 6.22 3.153 0.506 170.9 6.22 1.479 0.764 219.4 6.22 0.437 0.437 268.2 6.23 0.090 0.090 14.0 6.42 0.227 0.005 37.0 6.42 0.977 0.027 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 0.232 0.582 0.350 1.209 0.610 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.381 0.957 0.724 2.477 1.679 0.010 0.351 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.246 0.618 0.567 1.990 1.851 0.137 0.879 0.000 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.088 0.221 0.214 0.750 0.960 0.133 0.680 0.002 0.000 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.128 0.321 0.319 1.086 1.845 0.365 1.608 0.122 0.000 0.494 0.000 0.000 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.151 0.151 0.511 1.106 0.315 1.116 0.308 0.000 0.679 0.000 0.000 0.460 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.130 0.130 0.441 1.061 0.385 0.787 0.525 0.000 1.268 0.074 0.000 1.115 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.110 0.110 0.272 0.684 0.390 0.431 0.718 0.009 1.163 0.411 0.000 1.747 0.015 0.000 0.204 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.066 0.167 0.167 0.227 0.571 0.403 0.396 0.837 0.057 1.031 0.896 0.000 2.394 0.253 0.000 0.715 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.078 0.078 0.161 0.405 0.352 -2<EPS<-1 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.047 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.058 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.031 EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 https:llgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 512512012 Page 2 of 14 60.5 85.2 124.1 171.3 219.9 269.6 12.9 37.4 62.7 87.1 124.9 171.9 220.5 269.9 339.3 13.5 37.7 60.6 85.5 124.8 125.7 172.6 220.9 270.7 345.8 351.6 13.9 38.4 61.6 86.0 124.7 125.7 172.6 221.5 271.2 354.2 65.8 90.4 126.0 173.8 221.4 6.42 6.42 6.42 6.42 6.43 6.43 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.60 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.74 6.86 6.78 6.78 6.79 6.74 6.86 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.95 7.01 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.997 1.788 3.032 1.684 0.608 0.155 0.129 0.623 0.733 1.101 2.169 1.380 0.540 0.160 0.070 0.165 0.715 0.828 1.546 2.102 1.018 2.175 0.956 0.312 0.111 0.072 0.052 0.233 0.235 0.497 0.767 0.295 0.861 0.391 0.146 0.104 0.091 0.095 0.257 0.229 0.123 0.040 0.107 0.308 0.478 0.486 0.155 0.003 0.017 0.027 0.057 0.171 0.281 0.301 0.158 0.070 0.004 0.018 0.027 0.066 0.133 0.085 0.315 0.323 0.253 0.111 0.072 0.001 0.006 0.007 0.018 0.036 0.033 0.098 0.078 0.071 0.101 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.016 0.017 0.237 0.632 1.814 1.202 0.121 0.000 0.018 0.099 0.160 0.336 1.018 1.044 0.239 0.002 0.000 0.023 0.110 0.161 0.390 0.797 0.333 1.494 0.634 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.035 0.042 0.106 0.213 0.080 0.434 0.308 0.075 0.003 0.016 0.019 0.064 0.095 0.092 0.587 1.048 0.910 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.249 0.401 0.703 0.980 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.276 0.404 0.957 1.172 0.600 0.365 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.087 0.105 0.264 0.483 0.173 0.329 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.040 0.048 0.159 0.119 0.014 0.133 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.231 0.145 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.269 0.236 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.087 0.082 0.109 0.035 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.032 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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(%):100.0 Mean sre-site R=87.3 km;M=5.85;epsO=0.32.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sye-site R=32.9 km;M=4.80;epsO=0.37 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=35.7km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:1 to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.=2.477 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km) M epsilonO (mean values). 99.80 87.1 5.85 0.32 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth (d) deaggregation corresponding to Nean Hazard w/all m'iPEs *********# EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 -l<EPS<D 0.000 0.000 P8HA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison_White_M 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.dlol~0.2 below Return period:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex D.I09E-G3 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=D.OG849 #This deaggregation corresponds to Toro et al.1997 DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l 12.5 4.60 0.337 0.039 0.230 0.068 33.3 4.61 0.755 0.324 0.431 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/Denison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 5/25/2012 Page 3 of 14 63.2 4.61 0.261 0.261 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 88.8 4.61 0.061 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.5 4.80 0.573 0.064 0.379 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.7 4.80 1.456 0.537 0.919 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 63.6 4.81 0.595 0.575 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.1 4.81 0.166 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 112.0 4.83 0.061 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.7 5.03 0.399 0.041 0.246 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.6 5.03 1.313 0.350 0.950 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.2 5.04 0.721 0.613 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.5 5.04 0.255 0.255 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 116.2 5.04 0.161 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 5.21 0.149 0.015 0.088 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.2 5.21 0.586 0.125 0.443 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.6 5.21 0.394 0.279 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.7 5.21 0.161 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 118.3 5.21 0.129 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 5.39 0.222 0.021 0.128 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.8 5.39 1.013 0.182 0.776 0.055 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.0 5.40 0.819 0.447 0.372 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.9 5.40 0.383 0.367 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 119.6 5.40 0.366 0.366 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 164.5 5.40 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.61 0.107 0.010 0.060 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 36.5 5.61 0.586 0.086 0.443 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.5 5.62 0.603 0.216 0.387 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.1 5.62 0.335 0.247 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 120.8 5.62 0.391 0.387 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.1 5.63 0.108 0.108 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.80 0.093 0.009 0.052 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 36.7 5.80 0.536 0.074 0.400 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.7 5.81 0.591 0.186 0.404 0.000 0.000 b.oOO 0.000 90.1 5.81 0.344 0.231 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 121.1 5.81 0.424 0.406 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.7 5.81 0.131 0.131 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 214.9 5.82 0.020 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13 .5 6.01 0.079 0.007 0.044 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.1 6.01 0.390 0.046 0.270 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.1 6.01 0.387 0.072 0.312 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.7 6.01 0.556 0.197 0.359 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 121.9 6.01 0.552 0.440 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.6 6.01 0.215 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 218.2 6.02 0.057 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.5 6.19 0.119 0.011 0.066 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.9 6.22 0.336 0.038 0.227 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.3 6.21 0.387 0.066 0.315 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.6 6.21 0.559 0.173 0.386 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.0 6.22 0.590 0.429 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.9 6.22 0.244 0.244 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 219.0 6.22 0.070 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.0 6.42 0.057 0.005 0.031 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.3 6.42 0.263 0.027 0.161 0,074 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.8 6.43 0.410 0.061 0.325 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 87.8 6.41 0.378 0.084 0.294 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.8 6.42 0.634 0.304 0.331 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 171.6 6.42 0.324 0,299 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.0 6.42 0.122 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 269.1 6.43 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 6.59 0.032 0.003 0.018 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.6 6.59 0.164 0.017 0.099 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.9 6.60 0.206 0.027 0.158 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.8 6.59 0.273 0.056 0.216 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.4 6.60 0.403 0.170 0.233 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 171.9 6.60 0.220 0.185 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 512512012 Page 4 of 14 220.3 6.61 0.087 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 269.3 6.61 0.024 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.5 6.78 0.041 0.004 O.023 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.8 6.77 0.187 0.018 0.110 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.6 6.78 0.223 O.027 0.161 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.0 6.78 0.380 0.065 0.308 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.4 6.78 0.549 0.189 0.360 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172 .4 6.78 0.311 0.239 O. 072 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.7 6.78 0.131 0.130 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.0 6.78 0.038 O.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.6 6.97 0.061 0.006 0.035 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.7 6.97 0.066 0.007 0.042 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.6 6.97 0.132 0.018 0.102 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.6 6.97 0.220 0.049 0.171 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.6 6.96 0.152 0.072 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 221.5 6.96 0.070 0.062 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 271.0 6.96 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.7 7.16 0.024 0.003 0.016 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.1 7.16 0.022 0.003 0.018 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 124.3 7.16 0.044 0.011 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.9 7.16 0.028 0.016 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation,Re dda tance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):26.7 Mean sre-site R=76.9 km;M=5.72;epsO>0.46.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sre-site R=33.7 km;M=4.80;epsO:::0.49 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=33.4km;M*=5.03;EPS.INTERVAL:1 to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.950 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km)M epsilonO (mean values). 26.68 76.9 5.72 0.46 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth{d) deaggregation corresponding to Toro et al.1997 *********# EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison_White_M long:109.500 W.,lat:37.500 N. Vs30(m/s)=760.0 (some was atten.models use Site Class not Vs30). NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128.dM=0.2 below Return period:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex 0.109E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs}=0.00171 #This deaggregation corresponds to Atkinson-Boore06,140 bar DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 11.6 4.61 0.084 0.041 0.043 0.000 0.000 12.9 4.80 0.192 0.088 0.104 0.000 0.000 33.8 4.82 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.6 5.03 0.177 0.081 0.096 0.000 0.000 35.7 5.05 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.9 5.21 0.081 0.037 0.044 0.000 0.000 37.0 5.21 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.1 5.38 0.118 0.043 0.076 0.000 0.000 30.8 5.44 0.051 0.042 0.009 0.000 0.000 55.4 5.43 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.5 5.61 0.047 0.010 0.037 0.000 0.000 30.2 5.62 0.062 0.044 0.019 0.000 0.000 57.7 5.62 0.004 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.8 5.65 0.001 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 120.8 5.67 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.6 5.80 0.043 0.009 0.034 0.000 0.000 31.4 5.81 0.079 0.049 0.030 0.000 0.000 58.3 5.82 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.3 5.82 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 124.3 5.78 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.1 5.87 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 157.1 5.85 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 5/2512012 Page 5 of 14 13.3 6.01 0.037 0.007 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.3 6.01 0.069 0.040 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 57.9 6.02 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.2 6.02 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.4 6.02 0.031 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 164.6 6.02 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.0 6.20 0.054 0.011 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.1 6.23 0.074 0.037 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 58.6 6.22 0.026 O.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.1 6.22 0.029 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.6 6.22 0.066 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.8 6.23 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 211.9 6.25 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.9 6.42 0.028 0.005 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.5 6.42 0.070 0.027 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.3 6.42 0.026 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.8 6.43 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.8 6.43 O.083 O.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.3 6.43 0.046 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 217.7 6.43 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 6.59 0.016 0.003 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.3 6.59 0.050 0.017 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.2 6.60 0.024 0.022 O.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 87.6 6.59 0.029 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 126.3 6.59 0.075 0.075 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 171.2 6.59 0.047 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 219.4 6.59 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 266.3 6.60 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.5 6.78 0.020 0.004 O.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.9 6.77 0.063 0.018 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.5 6.78 0.037 0.026 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.9 6.78 0.052 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 126.2 6.78 0.130 0.130 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.1 6.78 0.089 0.089 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.4 6.79 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 269.6 6.79 0.009 0.009 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 318.5 6.81 O.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.9 6.97 0.007 0.001 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.1 6.97 0.022 0.006 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.8 6.97 0.012 0.007 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.2 6.97 0.021 0.018 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.6 6.97 0.050 0.047 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.1 6.97 0.038 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 221.1 6.97 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.7 6.98 0.005 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 330.3 6.99 O.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.3 7.16 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 40.7 7.16 0.004 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.6 7.16 0.005 0.003 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.4 7.16 0.005 0.003 O.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 126.6 7.16 0.015 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 173.3 7.16 O.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 221.2 7.16 0.006 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 271.4 7.16 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 341.5 7.16 0.001 0.001 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(%):2.7 Mean sre-site R=70.9 km;M=6.05;epsO=0.51.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sre-site R=12.9 km;M=4.80;epsO=-0.06 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=126.2km;W=6.78;EPS.INTERVAL:1 to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.130 Principal sources (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) Source Category:%contr.R(km)M epsilonO (mean values). https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/Denison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 5/25/2012 Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of Page 6 of 14 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth (d) deaggregation corresponding to Atkinson-Boore06,140 bar *********# PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison_White_M long:109.500 W.,lat:37.500 N. Vs30(m/s)=760.0 (some was atten.models use Site Class not Vs30). NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128.dM=0.2 below Return period:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex 0.882E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.01364 #This deaggregation corresponds to DIST (K~l) 12.6 32.4 62.4 89.3 12.7 33.4 63.2 89.8 115.6 12.8 34.6 64.0 90.2 119.7 158.4 12.9 35.3 64.6 90.3 121.a 163.6 12.9 36.0 65.1 90.4 122.1 167.7 12.9 36.6 64.6 88.6 122.9 169.3 215.7 12.9 37.1 60.4 85.5 123.4 170.2 218.7 13.6 37.2 60.1 85.6 123.9 171.7 219.9 267.6 16.6 38.2 60.4 85.7 HAG(MW) 4.60 4.61 4.61 4.62 4.79 4.80 4.81 4.81 4.82 5.03 5.03 5.04 5.04 5.04 5.07 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.39 5.40 5.40 5.40 5.41 5.41 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.63 5.62 5.62 5.63 5.80 5.80 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.82 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.02 6.19 6.22 6.21 6.21 ALL_EPS 0.183 0.393 0.081 0.019 0.318 0.900 0.281 0.096 0.072 0.215 0.796 0.379 0.167 0.196 0.015 0.078 0.349 0.218 0.112 0.154 0.029 0.115 0.598 0.470 0.282 0.455 0.139 0.055 0.327 0.298 0.266 0.425 0.170 0.033 0.047 0.312 0.233 0.444 0.596 0.290 0.083 0.040 0.211 0.217 0.372 0.601 0.326 0.116 0.026 0.061 0.185 0.233 0.423 EPSILON>2 0.039 0.248 0.081 0.019 0.064 0.498 0.281 0.096 0.072 0.041 0.350 0.377 0.167 0.196 0.015 0.015 0.125 0.208 0.112 0.154 O.029 O.021 0.182 0.396 0.282 0.455 0.139 0.010 0.086 0.191 0.254 0.425 0.170 O.033 0.009 0.074 0.098 0.325 0.589 0.290 0.083 0.007 0.046 0.072 0.197 0.517 0.326 0.116 0.026 0.011 0.038 0.066 0.173 Frankel et al.,1996 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 0.144 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.402 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.173 0.000 0.000 0.446 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.416 0.000 0.000 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.242 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.239 0.000 0.000 0.135 0.000 0.000 0.119 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.165 0.000 0.000 0.145 0.000 0.000 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.147 0.000 0.000 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.250 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 o.00a. 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 5/25/2012 124.4 172.3 220.7 269.3 14.0 37.4 60.7 85.5 124.8 125.1 172.7 221.0 270.6 333.4 13.0 37.8 62.8 87.3 125.7 173.3 221.6 270.8 341.2 13.5 38.0 60.8 85.7 125.6 173.9 222.1 271.4 347.4 352.8 38.7 61.7 86.1 125.3 173.9 222.5 272 .0 356.7 66.0 90.4 126.4 174.8 222.5 272 .5 361.0 6.21 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.42 6.42 6.42 6.42 6.40 6.49 6.42 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.74 6.86 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.768 0.496 0.206 0.060 0.029 0.138 0.159 0.319 0.470 0.168 0.472 0.231 0.077 0.032 0.016 0.086 0.114 0.191 0.429 0.356 0.192 0.074 0.041 0.021 . 0.097 0.125 0.254 0.569 0.505 0.305 0.128 0.057 0.036 0.031 0.034 0.076 0.171 0.168 0.103 0.049 0.044 0.013 0.015 0.043 0.045 0.031 0.016 0.017 0.503 0.491 0.206 0.060 0.005 0.027 0.040 0.106 0.234 0.074 0.418 0.231 0.077 0.032 0.003 0.017 0.027 0.056 0.170 0.259 0.192 0.074 0.041 0.004 0.018 0.027 0.065 0.189 0.279 0.282 0.128 0.057 0.036 0.006 0.007 0.018 0.049 0.073 0.077 0.049 0.044 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.016 0.017 0.014 0.017 0.264 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.111 0.119 0.213 0.236 0.093 0.054 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.070 0.087 0.135 0.259 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.079 0.098 0.189 0.380 0.226 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.027 0.058 0.123 0.095 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.011 0.032 0.029 0.014 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0 ..000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Page 7 of 14 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation,R=distance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):21.6 Mean sre-site R=104.6 km;M=5.87;epsO=0.43.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src-site R=33.4 km;M=4.80;epsO=0.27 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=123.4km;M*=5.81;EPS.INTERVAL:1 to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.589 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km)M epsilonO (mean values). 21.64 104.5 5.87 0.43 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth(d) deaggregation corresponding to Frankel et al.,1996 *********# PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:DenisOll_vfuite_M long:109.500 W.,lat:37.500 N. Vs30(m/s)=760.0 (some WUS atten.models use Site Class not Vs30). https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint!2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 5/25/2012 Page 8 of 14 NSHMP 2007-08 See USGS OFR 2008-1128.clM=0.2 below Return period:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex 0.668E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrsJ=0.01452 #This deaggregation corresponds to Campbell CEUS Hybrid DIST(KM)MAG (1111)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O -2<EPS<-1 EPS<-2 12.8 4.60 0.202 0.039 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 31.8 4.60 0.468 0.255 0.212 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.1 4.61 0.064 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.6 4.62 0.015 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 4.79 0.341 0.064 0.277 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 32.8 4.80 1.008 0.492 0.517 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.8 4.80 0.196 0.196 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.0 4.81 0.061 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 115.3 4.82 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.03 0.224 0.041 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 33.9 5.03 0.863 0.350 0.512 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.6 5.04 0.248 0.248 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.2 5.04 0.096 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 119.1 5.04 0.115 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.21 0.081 0.015 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 34.8 5.21 0.374 0.125 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 63.1 5.21 0.144 0.139 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.3 5.21 0.064 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 120.4 5.21 0.088 0.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.39 0.117 0.021 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.6 5.40 0.634 0.182 0.452 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.7 5.39 0.275 0.240 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 87.0 5.42 0.210 0.210 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 121.2 5.41 0.251 0.251 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 160.4 5.42 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.61 0.055 0.010 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 36.5 5.61 0.349 0.086 0.264 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.6 5.62 0.170 0.111 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.2 5.62 0.215 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.0 5.62 0.241 0.241 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 164.3 5.62 0.045 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.80 0.048 0.009 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.1 5.80 0.334 0.074 0.260 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.8 5.81 0.202 0.098 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.4 5.81 0.295 0.281 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.5 5.81 0.366 0.366 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 166.3 5.81 0.090 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.6 6.01 0.040 0.007 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.3 6.01 0.226 0.046 0.181 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.5 6.01 0.203 0.072 0.131 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.5 6.01 0.277 0.197 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.9 6.01 0.404 0.396 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.1 6.01 0.115 0.115 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 212.0 6.02 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.6 6.19 0.061 0.011 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.4 6.22 0.198 0.038 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.0 6.21 0.231 0.066 0.165 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.5 6.22 0.356 0.173 0.183 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.3 6.22 0.579 0.460 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.9 6.22 0.202 0.202 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 215.8 6.23 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.0 6.42 0.029 0.005 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.7 6.42 0.145 0.027 0.118 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.5 6.42 0.166 0.040 0.126 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.4 6.42 0.301 0.106 0.195 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.9 6.42 0.545 0.308 0.237 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 169.6 6.43 0.231 0.230 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 217.1 6.43 0.047 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.0 6.59 0.016 0.003 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 https:llgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggilltI2008/outIDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 512512012 Page 9 of 14 38.0 62.7 87.3 124.8 170.4 217.9 13.5 38.2 60.7 85.8 124.8 125.6 171.4 218.7 267.3 38.8 61.7 86.2 124.8 125.3 171.7 219.6 268.2 66.1 90.5 126.4 173.2 .219.9 6.59 6.60 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.74 6.86 6.78 6.79 6.79 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.92 7.03 6.97 6.97 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.090 0.121 0.193 0.404 0.203 0.049 0.021 0.100 0.135 0.270 0.394 0.191 0.343 0.101 0.016 0.032 0.037 0.083 0.109 0.080 0.136 0.044 0.009 0.014 0.016 0.049 0.042 0.017 0.017 0.027 0.056 0.170 0.185 0.049 0.004 0.018 O. 027· 0.065 0.133 0.055 0.253 0.101 0.016 0.006 0.007 0.018 O.029 0.019 O.073 0.044 0.009 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.016 0.015 0.074 0.095 0.137 0.234 0.017 0.000 O.017 0.082 0.108 0.205 0.260 0.136 0.090 0.000 0.000 0.026 0.030 0.065 0.080 0.060 0.063 0.001 0.000 O. 012 O.013 0.038 0.026 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.02.Mean calculated for all 0.05 from peak (R,M)bin to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.517 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation, Contribution from this GMPE(%):16.4 Mean sre-site R~81.2 km;M=5.81;epsO= Modal sre-site R=32.8 krn;M=4.80;epsO= MODE R*=28.6km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:1 R=distance,e=epsilon: sources. principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault In #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km) M epsilonO (mean values). 16.39 81.2 5.81 0.02 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth(d} deaggregation corresponding to Campbell CEUS Hybrid *********# EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -l<EPS<O 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison_White_M 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:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex 0.540E-04 #Pr(at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00790 #This deaggregation corresponds to Silva i-corner DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l 12.3 4.60 0.148 0.039 0.109 0.000 32.7 4.61 0.290 0.221 0.069 0.000 62.1 4.61 0.071 0.071 0.000 0.000 86.6 4.62 0.007 0.007 0.000 0.000 12.5 4.80 0.268 0.064 0.204 0.000 33.6 4.80 0.665 0.451 0.214 0.000 63.0 4.81 0.230 0.230 0.000 0.000 88.5 4.81 0.045 0.045 0.000 0.000 12.6 5.03 0.188 0.041 0.147 0.000 34.5 5.03 0.601 0.342 0.260 0.000 63.8 5.04 0.296 0.296 0.000 0.000 89.2 5.04 0.086 0.086 0.000 0.000 111.5 5.05 0.033 0.033 0.000 0.000 12.7 5.21 0.071 0.015 0.056 0.000 35.2 5.21 0.270 0.125 0.145 0.000 https:llgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outIDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 512512012 Page 10 of 14 64.3 5.21 0.169 0.168 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.5 5.21 0.061 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 115.6 5.21 0.036 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 5.39 0.107 0.021 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 35.7 5.40 0.471 0.182 0.290 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 64.8 5.40 0.366 0.337 0.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 89.7 5.40 0.158 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 118.3 5.41 0.i29 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 159.4 5.44 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 5.61 O.052 0.010 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 36.3 5.61 0.268 0.086 0.182 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.3 5.62 0.261 0.203 O.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.0 5.62 0.136 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 120.0 5.62 0.140 0.140 0.000 0.000 o.obo 0.000 0.000 166.0 5.63 0.029 O.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.80 0.046 0.009 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 36.8 5.80 0.263 0.074 0.189 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.8 5.81 0.303 0.186 0.117 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.2 5.81 0.182 0.180 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 121.1 5.81 0.224 0.224 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.8 5.82 0.069 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 213.3 5.83 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.5 6.01 0.039 0.007 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.0 6.01 0.184 0.046 0.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.9 6.00 0.207 0.088 0.119 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.7 6.02 0.233 0.177 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 121.8 6.01 0.254 0.254 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.8 6.01 0.097 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 218.5 6.02 O.027 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.5 6.20 0.059 O.all 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.0 6.22 0.166 0.038 0.128 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.4 6.21 0.201 0.066 0.134 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.9 6.21 0.311 0.173 0.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 122 .5 6.22 0.365 0.350 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 171.6 6.22 0.174 0.174 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.2 6.22 0.063 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 268.6 6.23 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.9 6.42 0.028 0.005 O.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.2 6.42 0.127 0.027 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.1 6.43 0.203 0.061 0.142 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 88.1 6.41 0.187 0.084 0.102 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.2 6.42 0.340 0.281 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.1 6.42 0.194 0.194 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.8 6.43 0.087 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 270.7 6.43 0.029 O.029 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 331.5 6.45 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 6.59 0.016 0.003 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.6 6.59 0.081 0.017 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.7 6.60 0.103 0.027 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.8 6.59 0.153 0.056 0.097 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 124.2 6.59 0.250 0.170 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.8 6.59 0.165 0.165 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 221.4 6.59 0.082 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 271.0 6.59 0.032 0.032 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 343.6 6.60 0.020 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.5 6.78 0.021 0.004 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.8 6.77 0.093 0.018 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.7 6.78 0.115 0.027 O.088 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.3 6.78 0.213 0.065 0.148 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 124.3 6.78 0.365 0.189 0.176 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 173.5 6.78 0.265 0.244 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 222.0 6.78 0.150 0.150 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 271.8 6.79 0.064 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 357.5 6.79 0.059 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 5/25/2012 Page 11 of 14 38.6 6.97 0.030 0.006 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.7 6.97 0.032 0.007 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.7 6.97 0.066 0.018 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 124.2 6.97 0.120 0.049 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 173.5 6.97 0.099 0.072 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 222.5 6.97 0.058 0.057 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 272 .3 6.97 0.028 0.028 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 366.1 6.98 0.033 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 65.9 7.16 0.013 0.003 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.3 7.16 0.013 0.003 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.6 7.16 0.032 0.011 0.021 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 174.4 7.16 0.029 0.016 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 222.5 7.16 0.019 0.017 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 272.8 7.16 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 370.3 7.16 0.014 0.014 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(%):13.2 Mean sre-site R=87.2 km;M=5.84;epsO=0.52.Mean calculated for all sources. jrodaL sre-site R=33.6 km;M=4.80;epsO=0.58 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=36.5km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:1 to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.451 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km) M epsilonO (mean values). 13.24 86.9 5.84 0.52 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(krn)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth(d) deaggregation corresponding to Silva 1-corner *********# EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:nenison_White_M 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:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex O.605E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.01408 #This deaggregation corresponds to Tavakoli and Pezeshk 05 nIST(KM)MAG (MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 12.5 4.60 0.183 0.039 0.145 0.000 0.000 29.5 4.61 0.222 0.153 0.069 0.000 0.000 12.7 4.79 0.325 0.064 0.262 0.000 0.000 30.7 4.80 0.596 0.347 0.249 0.000 0.000 59.3 4.81 0.044 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 5.03 0.220 0.041 0.179 0.000 0.000 32.4 5.03 0.621 0.301 0.320 0.000 0.000 61.2 5.04 0.094 0.094 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.1 5.05 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 115.4 5.06 0.023 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.21 0.080 0.015 0.065 0.000 0.000 33.6 5.21 0.302 0.125 0.177 0.000 0.000 62.1 5.21 0.071 0.071 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.3 5.21 0.027 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 119.4 5.21 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.39 0.117 0.021 0.096 0.000 0.000 34.8 5.46 0.557 0.182 0.375 0.000 0.000 58.9 5.40 0.152 0.145 0.007 0.000 0.000 85.1 5.41 0.142 0.142 0.000 0.000 0.000 121.2 5.41 0.148 0.148 0.000 0.000 0.000 158.7 5.43 0.014 0.014 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.61 0.055 0.010 0.045 0.000 0.000 36.1 5.61 0.329 0.086 0.244 0.000 0.000 59.3 5.62 0.133 0.102 0.031 0.000 0.000 85.4 5.62 0.154 0.154 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.2 5.62 0.186 0.186 0.000 0.000 0.000 163.9 5.63 0.035 0.035 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.80 0.048 0.009 0.039 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.goy/deaggint/2008/out/Denison,White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 5/25/2012 Page 12 of 14 36.9 5.80 0.327 O.074 0.253 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.6 5.81 0.178 0.098 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.6 5.81 0.248 0.245 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.8 5.81 0.332 0.332 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 166.6 5.82 0.087 O.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.6 6.01 0.040 0.007 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.3 6.01 0.226 0.046 0.181 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 59.4 6.01 0.195 0.072 0.123 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.7 6.01 0.261 0.196 0.065 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.3 6.01 0.415 0.406 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 168.5 6.02 0.131 0.131 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 213.5 6.02 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.6 6.19 0.061 O.all 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.4 6.22 0.199 O.038 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.0 6.21 0.232 0.066 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.7 6.22 0.362 0.173 0.190 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.8 6.22 0.642 0.478 0.164 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 169.4 6.22 0.252 0.252 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 216.8 6.23 0.045 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.0 6.42 O.029 0.005 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 37.7 6.42 0.146 0.027 0.119 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.5 6.42 0.170 0.040 0.131 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.6 6.42 0.319 0.106 0.213 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 124.4 6.42 0.629 0.308 0.321 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.2 6.43 0.304 0.292 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 217.8 6.43 0.073 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 264.5 6.44 0.008 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.0 6.59 0.016 0.003 O.013 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.1 6.59 0.091 0.017 0.074 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 62.7 6.60 0.126 0.027 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 87.4 6.59 0.208 0.056 0.152 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.3 6.59 0.471 0.170 0.301 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 171.a 6.59 0.272 0.222 0.050 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 218.6 6.59 0.076 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 266.7 6.59 0.012 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.5 6.78 0.021 0.004 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.2 6.77 0.101 0.018 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 60.8 6.78 0.138 0.027 0.111 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 85.9 6.78 0.288 0.065 0.223 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.6 6.78 0.674 0.189 0.485 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172 .1 6.78 0.457 0.274 0.183 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 219.3 6.79 0.157 0.156 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 268.1 6.79 0.030 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 38.8 6.97 0.032 0.006 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 61.8 6.97 0.037 0.007 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 86.3 6.97 0.087 0.018 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 125.4 6.97 0.211 0.049 0.163 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 172.4 6.97 0.176 0.073 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.2 6.97 0.068 0.061 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 268.8 6.98 0.016 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 66.2 7.16 0.014 0.003 O.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 90.5 7.16 0.017 0.003 0.014 0.000 p.OOO 0.000 0.000 126.7 7.16 0.053 O.all 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 173.9 7.16 0.052 0.016 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.4 7.16 0.025 0.017 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation,R:::distance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):14.8 Mean sre-site R~89.4 km;M~5.99;epsO::::-0.06.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sre-site R=125.6 km;M=6.78;epsO:::-0.44 from peak (R.M)bin MODE R*=125.6km;M*=6.78;EPS.INTERVAL:1 to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.485 Principal sources (faults.subduction,random seismicity having >3%contribution) Source Category:%contr.R(km)M epsilonO (mean values). https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outIDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 512512012 CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of Page 13 of 14 14.85 89.4 5.99 -0.06 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azirnuth{d) deaggregation corresponding to Tavakoli and Pezeshk 05 *********# PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:DenisOll_White_M 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:2475 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.07011 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex O.176E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median rnotion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0',00241 #This deaggregation corresponds to Atkinson-Boore06,200 bar DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 12.6 4.60 0.110 0.050 14.1 4.80 0.250 0.112 34.9 4.82 0.007 0.007 15.8 5.03 0.226 0.103 36.9 5.05 0.019 0.019 17.1 5.21 0.103 0.044 37.8 5.21 0.016 0.016 12.5 5.39 0.101 0.021 30.0 5.40 0.127 0.089 57.2 5.42 0.007 0.007 85.8 5.46 0.002 0.002 120.4 5.47 0.003 0.003 12.7 5.61 0.051 0.010 31.4 5.62 0.096 0.058 58.3 5.62 0.010 0.010 86.3 5.63 0.009 0.009 124.4 5.59 0.011 0.011 125.1 5.69 0.007 0.007 12.8 5.80 0.045 0.009 32.6 5.81 0.115 0.063 58.8 5.81 0.019 0.019 86.4 5.82 0.023 0.023 125.5 5.82 0.048 0.048 164.0 5.83 0.015 0.015 13.4 6.01 0.039 0.007 34.2 6.01 0.096 0.045 58.3 6.02 0.030 0.030 86.3 6.01 0.034 0.034 125.8 6.02 0.078 0.078 168.8 6.02 0.034 0.034 210.7 6.04 0.003 0.003 16.2 6.20 0.057 0.011 35.9 6.22 0.099 0.038 58.9 6.22 0.047 0.045 86.1 6.22 0.060 0.060 125.9 6.22 0.143 0.143 170.3 6.22 0.079 0.079 217.8 6.23 0.019 0.019 13.9 6.42 0.028 0.005 35.4 6.42 0.088 0.027 59.6 6.42 0.044 0.036 85.9 6.42 0.066 0.066' 126.0 6.43 0.162 0.162 171.2 6.43 0.104 0.104 219.5 6.43 0.036 0.036 267.6 6.44 0.007 0.007 12.9 6.59 0.016 0.003 36.1 6.59 0.061 0.017 61.6 6.60 0.038 0.027 87.6 6.59 0.051 0.051 126.5 6.59 0.135 0.135 172.0 6.59 0.097 0.097 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.138 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.037 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.036 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.023 0.000 0.000 0.061 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.000 0.000 0.044 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000, EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05 .25_15.24.10.txt 512512012 220.4 269.5 318.0 13.5 36.6 59.8 86.0 126.3 172.7 221.1 270.6 331.8 13.9 37.7 61.a 86.2 125.8 172.8 221.7 271.4 342.4 19.4 41.a 65.0 90.5 126.7 173.8 221.7 271.9 353.2 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.79 6.79 6.80 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.98 6.96 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.039 0.011 0.002 0.021 0.074 0.054 0.086 0.218 0.168 0.078 0.026 0.011 0.007 0.025 0.017 0.031 0.078 0.067 0.032 0.013 0.007 0.003 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.022 0.020 0.011 0.005 0.004 0.039 0.011 0.002 0.004 0.018 0.027 0.065 0.187 0.168 0.078 O.026 0.011 0.001 0.006 0.007 0.018 0.049 0.062 0.032 0.013 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.003 0.011 0.016 0.011 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.017 0.056 0.027 0.021 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.019 0.010 0.014 0.029 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.005 0.004 0.011 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Page 14 of 14 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation,R=distance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE{%):4.3 Mean sre-site R=87.9 km;M=6.11;epsO=0.57.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sre-site R=14.1 km;M=4.80;epsO:-0.18 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*~126.3km;M*~6.77;EPS.INTERVAL:1 to 2 sigma %CONTRIB.~0.187 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R{km) M epsilonO (mean values). 4.33 87.9 6.11 0.57 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site~to-src azimuth (d) deaggregation corresponding to Atkinson-Boore06,200 bar *********# ********************Intermountain Seismic Belt*********************************** https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outlDenison_White_M_2012.05.25_15.24.10.txt 512512012 ATTACHMENT 4.2 US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEAGGREGATION DATA 9,900 YEAR RETURN PERIOD Page 1 of 11 EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.003 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.031 0.000 0.000 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.085 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.079 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.057 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.079 ***Deaggregation of Seismic Hazard at One Period of Spectral Aceel.*** ***Data from U.S.G.S.National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project,2008 version *** PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 O.102E-03 #pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrsJ=O.00194 #This deaggregation corresponds to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 15.5 4.60 4.032 0.469 1.782 1.495 0.285 38.2 4.61 0.503 0.449 0.054 0.000 0.000 56.3 4.62 0.051 0.051 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.4 4.79 6.327 0.429 2.129 3.079 0.686 30.6 4.82 3.489 1.410 1.948 0.131 0.000 58.5 4.82 0.245 0.245 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.0 5.03 4.314 0.164 0.981 2.302 0.836 30.6 5.03 4.752 1.314 2.781 0.657 0.000 61.0 5.04 0.543 0.543 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.2 5.21 1.739 0.059 0.351 0.870 0.440 31.4 5.21 2.483 0.500 1.409 0.574 0.000 62.0 5.21 0.409 0.405 0.004 0.000 0.000 88.1 5.21 0.060 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.4 5.39 2.758 0.085 0.509 1.278 0.831 32.2 5.40 5.009 0.725 2.729 1.555 0.000 62.7 5.40 1.127 0.994 0.133 0.000 0.000 89.1 5.41 0.261 0.261 0.000 0.000 0.000 113.4 5.42 0.104 0.104 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.5 5.61 1.422 0.040 0.240 0.602 0.497 33.1 5.62 3.397 0.341 1.690 1.333 0.033 63.5 5.62 1.088 0.726 0.361 0.000 0.000 89.6 5.62 0.353 0.353 0.000 0.000 0.000 116.8 5.63 0.239 0.239 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.6 5.80 1.287 0.035 0.207 0.519 0.474 33.8 5.81 3.657 0.294 1.667 1.571 0.124 63.8 5.81 1.408 0.718 0.691 0.000 0.000 89.9 5.81 0.540 0.537 0.002 0.000 0.000 118.5 5.82 0.484 0.484 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.3 6.01 1.127 0.029 0.174 0.437 0.416 35.0 6.01 2.997 0.182 1.086 1.555 0.174 60.4 6.01 1.442 0.351 1.064 0.027 0.000 85.1 6.02 1.003 0.690 0.313 0.000 0.000 119.8 6.02 0.814 0.810 0.004 0.000 0.000 166.2 6.02 0.128 0.128 0.000 0.000 0.000 16.06.201.6540.044 0.265 0.665 0.594 36.3 6.22 2.908 0.152 0.906 1.616 0.235 59.3 6.21 1.650 0.264 1.222 0.163 0.000 84.2 6.22 1.555 0.688 0.866 0.000 0.000 120.7 6.22 1.370 1.270 0.100 0.000 0.000 168.1 6.23 0.315 0.315 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.8 6.42 0,848 0.021 0.124 0.311 0.311 35.7 6.42 2.585 0.108 0.643 1.435 0.399 63.3 6.43 1.941 0.244 1.291 0.407 0.000 87.6 6.41 1.210 0.336 0.874 0.000 0.000 121.5 6.43 1.715 1.134 0.581 0.000 0.000 168.9 6.43 0.511 0.511 0.000 0.000 0.000 217.0 6.43 0.099 0.099 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 6.59 0.494 0.012 0.070 0.176 0.176 36.2 6.59 1.743 0.066 0.395 0.948 0.333 61.7 6.60 1.196 0.107 0.637 0.452 0.000 86.4 6.59 1.126 0.224 0.902 0.000 0.000 122.6 6.60 1.439 0.679 0.760 0.000 0.000 169.7 6.60 0.507 0.499 0.008 0.000 0.000 218.9 6.60 0.122 0.122 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.4 6.78 0.637 0.015 0.090 0.225 0.225 htlps:/Igeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/outlDenison_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 5/2512012 Page 2 of 11 36.7 6.77 2.118 0.073 0.437 1.092 0.507 0.009 0.000 59.8 6.78 1.599 0.107 0.640 0.851 0.000 0.000 0.000 84.7 6.78 1.942 0.259 1.437 0.246 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.6 6.78 2.497 0.753 1.744 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.7 6.79 0.976 0.840 0.136 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 219.5 6.79 0.281 0.281 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 268.9 6.79 O. 063 0.063 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 13.9 6.97 0.204 0.005 0.028 0.072 0.072 0.027 0.001 37.7 6.97 0.735 0.023 0.138 0.346 0.220 0.008 0.000 61.1 6.97 0.526 0.028 0.166 0.323 0.009 0.000 0.000 85.2 6.97 0.774 0.070 0.419 0.285 0.000 0.000 0.000 122.5 6.97 1.074 0.194 0.839 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 170.6 6.97 0.482 0.283 0.199 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220 .1 6.97 0.146 0.146 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 19.2 7.16 0.087 0.002 0.013 0.032 0.032 0.009 0.000 41.a 7.16 0.138 0.004 0.026 0.065 0.043 0.000 0.000 64.8 7.16 0.206 0.011 0.063 0.124 0.008 0.000 0.000 90.1 7.16 0.158 0.013 0.076 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 123.9 7.16 0.312 0.043 0.229 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 171.7 7.16 0.154 0.063 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 220.1 7.16 0.055 0.052 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaqqr-eqat i.on,R=:distance,e:::epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):100.0 Mean sYe-site R=51.5 km:M=5.82;epsO=0.33.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sye-site R=13.4 km;M=4.79;epsO=-0.26 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=12.2km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:a to 1 sigma %CONTRIB.=3.079 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km) M epsilonO (mean values). 100.00 51.5 5.82 0.33 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(krn)M epsilonO Site-to-src azirnuth(d) deaggregation corresponding to Mean Hazard w/all GMPEs *********# EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -l<EPS<O 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 0.281E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00212 #This deaggregation corresponds to Taro et al.1997 DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l 11.7 4.60 0.756 0.155 0.577 0.024 30.1 4.61 0.584 0.504 0.080 0.000 56.9 4.62 0.034 0.034 0.000 0.000 11.8 4.80 1.361 0.254 1.045 0.061 30.6 4.81 1.260 0.986 0.274 0.000 59.4 4.82 0.124 0.124 0.000 0.000 12.1 5.03 1.068 0.164 0.824 0.080 31.6 5.03 1.404 0.910 0.494 0.000 61.5 5.04 0.252 0.252 0.000 0.000 86.1 5.06 0.017 0.017 0.000 0.000 12.3 5.21 0.433 0.059 0.327 0.047 32.4 5.21 0.728 0.406 0.322 0.000 62.5 5.21 0.181 0.181 0.000 0.000 87.6 5.21 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000 12.4 5.39 0.689 0.085 0.495 0.108 33.1 5.40 1.448 0.672 0.776 0.000 63.1 5.40 0.476 0.476 0.001 0.000 88.7 5.40 0.104 0.104 0.000 0.000 108.7 5.41 0.021 0.021 0.000 0.000 12.6 5.61 0.360 0.040 0.239 0.081 34.1 5.62 1.014 0.341 0.671 0.002 63.9 5.62 0.471 0.440 0.031 0.000 https:llgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI200S/outiDenison_2012.05.25_16.3S.44.txt 512512012 89.3 114.1 12.6 34.4 64.1 89.4 115.3 13 .3 35.5 61.2 84.8 118.2 161.9 16.0 36.5 62.8 86.8 118.6 164.2 13 .8 36.0 63.6 86.8 120.0 167.8 12.9 36.4 62.4 86.0 120.7 168.7 13.5 36.7 60.1 83.9 120.7 169.8 216.0 13 .9 37.9 61.3 84.7 121.2 170.3 218.9 19.3 41.a 64.7 89.7 121.8 170.7 5.63 5.64 5.80 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.82 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.02 6.02 6.03 6.20 6.22 6.22 6.21 6.22 6.22 6.42 6.42 6.43 6.41 6.42 6.43 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.59 6.61 6.61 6.7~ 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.79 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.96 6.96 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.146 0.071 0.320 0.980 0.500 0.168 0.095 0.285 0.855 0.550 0.366 0.217 0.020 0.414 0.767 0.659 0.337 0.263 0.033 0.215 0.710 0.653 0.408 0.404 0.096 0.124 0.460 0.375 0.312 0.285 0.079 0.160 0.552 0.451 0.516 0.439 0.131 0.023 0.052 0.202 0.162 0.232 0.240 0.094 0.024 0.022 0.035 0.052 0.033 O.043. 0.015 0.146 0.071 0.035 0.294 0.448 0.168 0.095 0.029 0.182 0.337 0.350 0.217 0.020 0.044 0.152 0.367 0.328 0.263 0.033 0.021 0.108 0.244 0.296 0.402 0.096 0.012 0.066 0.107 0.208 0.272 0.079 0.015 0.073 0.107 0.258 0.404 0.131 0.023 0.005 0.023 0.028 0.070 0.171 0.094 0.024 0.002 0.004 O.all 0.013 0.036 0.015 0.000 0.000 0.207 0.680 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.174 0.654 0.214 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.264 0.588 0.292 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.124 0.544 0.410 0.112 0.002 0.000 0.070 0.348 0.268 0.104 0.013 0.000 0.090 0.410 0.344 0.258 0.034 0.000 0.000 0.028 0.137 0.133 0.162 0.068 0.000 0.000 0.013 0.026 0.041 0.020 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.078 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.082 0.019 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.058 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.042 0.047 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.055 0.069 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.018 0.042 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 O.000 0.000 O.000 o.000 o.000 O.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Page 3 ofll Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation,R=distance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):27.5 Mean sre-site R=48.4 km;M=5.77;epsO=0.55.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src-site R=33.1 km;M=5.40;epsO=0.69 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=11.9km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:a to 1 sigma %CONTRIB.=1.045 principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R{km) M epsilonO (mean values). 27.49 48.4 5.77 0.55 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth(d) deaggregation corresponding to Toro et al.1997 *********# bttps://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outlDenison_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 512512012 Page 4 of 11 PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 O.258E-05 #Pr(at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=O,00059 #This deaggregation corresponds to DIST(KM) 8.6 9.5 10.7 11.7 12.9 34.0 14.2 35.5 15.4 37.0 13.7 31.1 54.2 16.6 37.6 56.5 14.6 32.1 58.0 85.4 123.5 12.5 32.0 59.6 87.5 125.2 159.8 13 .2 33.0 58.3 85.8 125.3 167.0 16.2 36.4 59.9 86.0 124.8 125.3 168.9 213.0 18.5 39.4 63.0 90.4 125.9 170.9 MAG (MW) 4.61 4.80 5.03 5.21 5.40 5.42 5.62 5.63 5.80 5.82 6.01 6.03 6.03 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.41 6.44 6.43 6.44 6.44 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.78 6.78 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.80 6.96 6.98 6.98 6.98 6.96 7.01 6.98 7.00 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 ALL_EPS 0.101 0.250 0.251 0.123 0.237 0.003 0.152 0.006 0.166 0.013 0.122 0.047 0.002 0.187 0.039 0.006 0.104 0.077 0.009 0.006 0.011 0.057 0.072 0.011 0.008 0.018 0.003 0.074 0.102 0.022 0.020 0.045 0.016 0.031 0.032 0.009 0.011 0.016 0.007 0.011 0.001 0.009 0.007 0.004 0.003 0.009 0.005 EPSILON>2 0.063 0.146 0.144 0.063 0.114 0.003 0.071 0.006 0.079 0.013 0.039 0.043 0.002 0.066 0.039 0.006 0.027 0.057 0.009 0.006 0.011 0.012 0.047 0.011 0.008 0.018 0.003 0.015 0.061 O.022 0.020 0.045 0.016 0.007 0.020 0.009 O.all 0.016 0.007 O.all 0.001 0.002 0.004 0.004 0.003 0.009 0.005 Atkinson-Boore06,140 bar 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 0.038 0.000 0.000 0.105 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.123 0,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.087 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.083 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.121 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.076 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.045 0.000 0.000 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.059 0.000 0.000 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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(%):2.5 Mean sye-site R=25.8 kmi M=5.84;epsO=0.23.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sre-site R=10.7 km;M=5.03;epsO=0.25 from peak (R.M)bin MODE R*=11.0km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:0 to 1 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.146 Principal sources Source Category: (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km)M epsilonO (mean values). https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggillt/2008/out/Dellisoll_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 5/25/2012 Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of Page 5 of 11 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth (d) deaggregation corresponding to Atkinson~Boore06/140bar *********# PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 0.229E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrsJ=0.00337 #This deaggregation corresponds to DIST(KM) 14.7 31.a 12.2 30.1 57.6 12.4 31.3 61.1 87.4 12.6 32.2 62.4 89.3 12.7 33.1 63.2 89.9 115.4 12.7 34.1 64.0 90.1 119.5 12.8 34.9 64.5 90.3 120.9 162.5 13.5 35.7 60.7 85.8 121.6 167.8 16.3 37.0 59.7 85.0 122.4 169.6 214.9 13.9 36.3 64.1 88.3 123.1 170.4 218.2 12.9 36.8 62.1 86.8 MAG(MW) 4.59 4.64 4.80 4.80 4.82 5.03 5.03 5.04 5.08 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.39 5.40 5.41 5.41 5.42 5.61 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.62 5.80 5.80 5.81 5.81 5.81 5.83 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.02 6.01 6.02 6.20 6.22 6.21 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.24 6.42 6.42 6.43 6.41 6.42 6.43 6.43 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.59 ALL_EPS 0.582 0.224 0.901 0.939 0.052 0.674 1.014 0.134 0.012 0.263 0.516 0.105 0.024 0.404 1.014 0.292 0.099 0.075 0.201 0.641 0.266 0.119 0.136 0.178 0.688 0.375 0.198 0.270 0.046 0.153 0.522 0.329 0.304 0.365 0.096 0.229 0.499 0.375 0.469 0.599 0.218 0.036 0.112 0.411 0.410 0.319 0.624 0.277 0.073 0.064 0.272 0.236 0.293 EPSILON>2 0.271 0.215 0.254 0.826 0.052 0.164 0.771 0.134 0.012 0.059 0.348 0.105 0.024 0.085 0.615 0.292 0.099 0.075 0.040 0.335 0.266 0.119 0.136 0.035 0.294 0.370 0.198 0.270 0.046 0.029 0.182 0.286 0.304 0.365 0.096 0.044 0.152 0.262 0.468 0.599 0.218 0.036 0.021 0.108 0.244 0.308 0.624 0.277 0.073 0.012 0.066 0.107 0.224 Frankel et al.,1996 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l ~l<EPS<O 0.310 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.000 0.000 0.646 0.000 0.000 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.510 0.000 0.000 0.243 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.204 0.000 0.000 0.167 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.319 0.000 0.000 0.399 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.161 0.000 0.000 0.306 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.144 0.000 0.000 0.393 0.000 0.000 0.005 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.124 0.000 0.000 0.340 0.000 0.000 0.043 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.185 0.000 0.000 0.347 0.000 0.000 0.112 0.000 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.091 0.000 0.000 0.303 0.000 0.000 0.166 0.000 0.000 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.052 0.000 0.000 0.206 0.000 0.000 0.129 0.000 0.000 0.069 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<~1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 https:/Igeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/out/Denison_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 512512012 Page 6 of 11 124.0 171.1 219.5 266.7 13.5 37.2 60.3 85.2 124.0 172 .0 220.2 269.1 13.9 38.0 61.4 85.6 123.8 172.a 220.9 270.2 19.4 41.2 65.4 90.3 125.1 173.2 220.9 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.79 6.79 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.493 0.257 0.082 0.016 0.082 0.323 0.299 0.459 0.774 0.445 0.171 0.043 0.026 0.107 0.089 0.158 0.276 0.179 0.072 0.022 0.011 0.021 0.036 0.033 0.079 0.058 0.027 0.489 0.257 0.082 0.016 0.015 0.073 0.107 0.259 0.681 0.445 0.171 0.043 0.005 0.023 0.028 O. 070 0.193 0.179 0.072 0.022 0.002 0.004 O.011 0.013 0.043 0.054 0.027 0.004 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.067 0.249 0.191 0.200 0.093 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.084 0.061 0.088 0.083 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.016 0.026 0.020 0.036 0.003 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregation,R=distancet e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):22.4 Mean sre-site R=69.3 kID;M=5.91;epsO=0.55.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src-site R=33.1 km;M=5.40;epsO=0.42 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=30.7km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL: 0 to 1 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.826 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R{km) M epsilonO (mean values). 22.42 69.3 ·5.91 0.55 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth(d) deaggregation corresponding to Frankel et al.,1996 *********# EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 0.148E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=0.00388 #This deaggregation corresponds to Campbell CEUS Hybrid DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 16.1 4.60 0.891 0.401 0.490 0.000 0.000 37.0 4.61 0.084 0.084 0.000 0.000 0.000 17.1 4.80 1.785 0.745 1.040 0.000 0.000 37.5 4.80 0.249 0.249 0.000 0.000 0.000 54.0 4.82 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.5 5.03 0.785 0.164 0.621 0.000 0.000 29.3 5.03 0.947 0.639 0.307 0.000 0.000 55.7 5.04 0.025 0.025 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.7 5.21 0.297 0.059 0.238 0.000 0.000 30.0 5.21 0.470 0.283 0.187 0.000 0.000 56.9 5.21 0.020 0.020 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.8 5.39 0.445 0.085 0.359 0.000 0.000 30.9 5.40 0.912 0.496 0.416 0.000 0.000 59.1 5.41 0.066 0.066 0.000 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.61 0.215 0.040 0.175 0.000 0.000 32.0 5.62 0.588 0.285 0.303 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggillt/2008/out/Denison_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 5/25/2012 60.4 89.3 12 .9 33.0 61.2 89.9 113.7 13 .6 34.5 58.3 85.1 116.9 16.5 36.2 58.1 84.3 119.0 14.0 35.8 61.8 87.9 120.0 158.1 13.0 36.6 60.5 86.3 121.1 161.a 13.5 37.2 59.2 84.7 121.2 164.7 13 .9 38.2 60.6 85.2 121.4 165.4 19.4 41.3 64.3 90.1 122.9 167.5 5.62 5.63 5.80 5.80 5.81 5.82 5.83 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.02 6.02 6.19 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.42 6.42 6.43 6.42 6.43 6.44 6.59 6,59 6.60 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.79 6.79 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.98 6.98 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.070 0.012 0.188 0.644 0.111 0.028 0.019 0.159 0.510 0.134 0.059 0.043 0.240 0.501 0.189 0.117 0.098 0.114 0.430 0.217 0.099 0.134 0.009 0.065 0.290 0.154 0.113 0.132 0.015 0.083 0.348 0.234 0.225 0.269 0.041 0.026 0.116 0.077 0.095 0.124 0.025 0.012 0.023 0.033 0.024 0.044 0.011 0.070 0.012 0.035 0.280 0.111 0.028 0.019 0.029 0.182 0.134 0.059 0.043 0.044 0.152 0.171 0.117 0.098 0.021 0.108 0.175 0.099 0.134 0.009 0.012 0.066 0.101 0.113 0.132 0.015 0.015 0.073 0.107 0.215 0.269 0.041 0.005 0.023 0.028 0.070 0.122 0.025 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.013 0.037 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.153 0.364 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.328 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.196 0.349 0.017 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.322 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.224 0.053 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.275 0.127 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.021 0.093 0.049 0.025 0.002 0.000 0.009 0.018 0.022 0.011 0.007 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Page 7 of 11 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregatioll,R=distance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):14.5 Mean sre-site R=38.0 km;M=5.67;epsO=-0.23.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src-site R=17.1 km:M=4.80:epsO=-0.45 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=14.5km:M*=4.80:EPS.INTERVAL:a to 1 sigma %CONTRIB.=1.040 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km)M epsilonO (mean values). 14.50 38.0 5.67 -0.23 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth(d) deaggregation corresponding to Campbell CEUS Hybrid *********# PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 https:llgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outlDellison_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 512512012 Page 8 of 11 Return period:9900 yrs.Exceedance PGA =0.1511 g.Weight *Computed_Rate_Ex 0.155E-04 #Pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA in 50 yrs]=O.00190 #This deaggregation corresponds to Silva i-corner DIST(KM)MAG(MW)ALL_EPS EPSILON>2 11.6 4.60 0.313 0.155 29.9 4.61 0.245 0.245 55.5 4.62 0.009 0.009 11.8 4.80 0.625 0.254 30.8 4.80 0.660 0.653 58.2 4.81 0.059 0.059 12.1 5.03 0.490 0.164 31.9 5.03 0.714 0.649 61.2 5.04 0.128 0.128 12.2 5.21 0.199 0.059 32.7 5.21 0.365 0.303 62.3 5.21 0.095 0.095 86.5 5.21 0.011 0.011 12.4 5.39 0.319 0.085 33.5 5.40 0.722 0.544 63.1 5.40 0.256 0.256 88.6 5.41 0.055 0.055 12.5 5.61 0.166 0.040 34.3 5.62 0.472 0.311 63.9 5.62 0.227 0.227 89.3 5.62 0.069 0.069 111.3 5.63 0.027 0.027 12.6 5.80 0.153 0.035 34.9 5.80 0.518 0.292 64.4 5.81 0.316 0.316 89.6 5.81 0.119 0.119 116.1 5.82 0.077 0.077 13.3 6.01 0.135 0.029 35.6 6.01 0.404 0.182 60.8 6.01 0.277 0.261 84.5 6.02 0.207 0.207 118.5 6.02 0.127 0.127 160.5 6.03 0.011 0.011 16.1 6.20 0.202 0.044 36.9 6.22 0.400 0.152 59.9 6.21 0.322 0.256 83.8 6.22 0.340 0.340 119.9 6.22 0.239 0.239 167.1 6.23 0.052 0.052 13.8 6.42 0.103 0.021 36.2 6.42 0.341 0.108 64.1 6.43 0.357 0.243 87.5 6.41 0.232 0.232 120.8 6.43 0.280 0.280 169.7 6.43 0.090 0.090 215.1 6.44 0.017 0.017 12.8 6.59 0.061 0.012 36.7 6.59 0.232 0.066 62.1 6.60 0.208 0.107 86.0 6.59 0.225 0.202 122.1 6.59 0.242 0.242 170.8 6.59 0.097 0.097 218.8 6.59 0.028 0.028 13.4 6.78 0.078 0.015 37.0 6.77 0.282 0.073 60.3 6.78 0.266 0.107 84.5 6.78 0.368 0.258 122.3 6.78 0.421 0.419 171.8 6.79 0.196 0.196 220.2 6.79 0.074 0.074 1<EPS<2 O<EPS<l 0.158 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.371 0.000 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.325 0.000 0.064 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.140 0.000 0.062 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.233 0.000 0.178 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.126 0.000 0.160 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.118 0.000 0.226 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.106 0.000 0.223 0.000 0.016 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.157 0.000 0.248 0.000 0.066 0.000 6.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.082 0.000 0.233 0.000 0.113 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.049 0.000 0.166 0.000 0.101 0.000 0.022 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.000 0.208 0.000 0.159 0.000 0.110 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -l<EPS<O 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintI2008/outlDenisOll_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 512512012 Page 9 of 11 269.1 13.9 37.9 61.4 85:0 122.4 171.9 221.1 270.8 19.2 41.2 65.3 90.0 123.9 173.1 221.3 6.80 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.98 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.019 0.025 0.096 0.081 0.129 0.164 0.091 0.037 0.013 0.011 0.019 0.033 0.027 0.050 0.032 0.016 0.019 0.005 0.023 0.028 0.070 0.153 O.091 0.037 0.013 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.013 0.041 0.032 0.016 0.000 0.020 0.073 0.053 0.059 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.014 0.023 0.014 0.009 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000O.ooq 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregatioTI,R=distance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):15.2 Mean sre-site R=58.4 km;M=5.88;epsO=0.69.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal sre-site R=33.5 km;M=5.40;epsO=0.74 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=30.9km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:a to 1 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.653 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(km) M epsilonO (mean values). 15.20 58.3 5.88 0.69 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth (d) deaggregation corresponding to Silva I-corner *********# PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 O.144E-04 #pr[at least one eq with median motion>=PGA #This deaggregation corresponds to EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 in 50 yrs]=0.00378 and Pezeshk 05 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O Tavakoli 1<EPS<2 0.319 0.000 0.732 0.000 0.725 0.000 0.230 0.132 0.000 0.356 0.356 0.000 0.175 0.297 0.000 0.000 0.154 0.381 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.130 0.363 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.197 EPSILON>2 0.276 0.018 0.612 0.088 0.483 0.164 0.059 0.236 0.008 0.085 0.446 0.037 0.040 0.274 0.054 0.008 0.035 0.280 0.103 0.027 0.023 0.029 0.182 0.141 0.065 0.061 0.044 ALL_EPS 0.595 0.018 1.344 0.088 1.207 0.164 0.289 0.368 0.008 0.441 0.802 0.037 0.215 0.571 0.054 0.008 0.188 0.661 0.103 0.027 0.023 0.160 0.545 0.143 0.065 0.061 0.242 MAG(MW) 4.60 4.62 4.80 4.81 5.03 5.04 5.21 5.21 5.21 5.39 5.40 5.42 5.61 5.62 5.62 5.63 5.80 5.81 5.81 5.82 5.83 6.01 6.01 6.01 6.02 6.02 6.19 DIST(KM) 14.2 34.9 15.6 36.2 17.3 37.3 12.6 29.1 55.3 12.7 30.3 57.5 12.9 31.7 59.7 89.2 12.9 33.0 60.8 90.1 115.3 13.6 34.7 58.2 85.5 118.7 16.5 https://geohazal'ds.usgs.gov/deaggint/2008/out/Denison_2012.05.25_16.38,44.txt 5/25/2012 Page 10of 11 36.6 58.1 84.7 120.3 157.5 14.0 36.2 62.0 88.2 121.1 161.4 13.0 37.0 60.7 86.7 122.1 164.3 13 .5 37.5 59.3 85.1 122.2 166.6 13.9 38.5 60.8 85.5 122.3 166.7 19.4 41.5 64.6 90.2 123.7 168.5 6.22 6.22 6.22 6.23 6.25 6.42 6.42 6.43 6.42 6.43 6.43 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.59 6.59 6.59 6.78 6.77 6.78 6.78 6.78 6.79 6.97 6.97 6.97 6.98 6.98 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.546 0.218 0.144 0.150 0.009 0.114 0.466 0.264 0.132 0.216 0.026 0.065 0.311 0.189 0.154 0.217 0.036 0.083 0.368 0.283 0.305 0.439 0.092 0.026 0.121 O.092 0.127 0.197 0.052 0.012 0.023 0.039 0.032 0.068 0.022 0.152 0.185 0.144 0.150 0.009 0.021 0.108 0.194 0.132 0.216 0.026 0.012 0.066 0.106 0.154 0.217 0.036 0.015 0.073 0.107 0.253 0.435 O.092 0.005 0.023 0.028 0.070 0.168 0.052 0.002 0.004 0.011 0.013 0.043 0.022 0.394 0.033 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.093 0.358 0.070 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.053 0.245 0.082 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.068 0.295 0.176 0.053 0.003 0.000 0.021 0.098 0.064 0.057 0.029 0.000 0.009 0.019 0.028 0.019 0.026 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 .O.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Summary statistics for above PSHA PGA deaggregatioll,R=distance,e=epsilon: Contribution from this GMPE(%):14.1 Mean sre-site R=44.5 km;M=5.84;epsO=-0.22.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src-site R=15.6 km;M=4.80;epsO=-0.27 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=12.3km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:a to 1 sigma % CONTRIB.=0.732 Principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R{km) M epsilonO (mean values). 14.08 44.5 5.84 -0.22 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd{km)M epsilonO Site-to-src azimuth (d) deaggregation corresponding to Tavakoli and Pezeshk 05 *********# EPS<-2 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -2<EPS<-1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 PSHA Deaggregation.%contributions.site:Denison 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 O.388E-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 O<EPS<l -l<EPS<O 9.3 4.61 0.144 0.083 0.061 0.000 0.000 10.3 4.80 0.352 0.204 0.148 0.000 0.000 11.7 5.03 0.348 0.176 0.173 0.000 0.000 12.9 5.21 0.169 0.080 0.089 0.000 0.000 33.9 5.21 0.002 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 14.1 5.40 0.321 0.149 0.171 0.000 0.000 35.4 5.42 0.011 0.011 0.000 0.000 0.000 15.5 5.61 0.202 0.096 0.106 0.000 0.000 https:llgeohazards.usgs.gov/deaggintl2008/outlDenison_2012.05.25_16.38,44.txt 512512012 37.0 15.3 31.6 55.1 12.9 31.a 56.1 17.3 38.0 57.5 85.8 123.8 15.2 33.3 58.5 85.6 124.9 125.2 162.4 12.7 33.1 60.2 87.6 125.7 167.5 13.3 34.0 58.7 85.8 125.7 170.0 214.6 16.6 37.2 60.2 86.1 125.2 170.3 218.7 18.9 39.9 63.5 90.4 126.1 171.8 219.6 5.62 5.79 5.84 5.83 6.01 6.01 6.02 6.21 6.21 6.22 6.23 6.24 6.41 6.43 6.43 6.43 6.40 6.49 6.44 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.59 6.59 6.60 6.78 6.77 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.81 6.96 6.98 6.98 6.98 6.98 6.98 6.98 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 7.16 0.017 0.186 0.061 0.002 0.126 0.103 0.008 0.226 0.072 0.018 o.all 0.021 0.117 0.120 0.023 0.021 0.031 0.015 O.all 0.060 0.106 0.024 0.022 0.052 0.021 0.078 0.144 0.044 0.048 0.111 0.055 0.009 0.033 0.045 0.017 0.022 0.051 0.029 0.008 0.010 0.010 0.008 0.006 0.018 0.011 0.004 0.017 0.073 0.054 0.002 0.029 0.084 0.008 0.066 0.070 0.018 0.011 0.021 0.027 0.079 0.023 0.021 0.031 0.015 o.all 0.012 0.059 0.024 O.022 0.052 O.021 0.015 0.071 0.044 0.048 0.111 0.055 0.009 0.007 0.021 0.017 0.022 0.051 0.029 0.008 0.002 0.004 0.008 0.006 0.018 0.011 0.004 0.000 0.113 0.007 0.000 0.096 0.018 0.000 0.160 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.089 0.041 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.048 0.046 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.063 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.027 0.024 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.008 0.006 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 o.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0:000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Page 11 of 11 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 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 sre-site R=36.8 km;M=5.90;epsO=0.30.Mean calculated for all sources. Modal src-site R=10.3 km;M=4.80;epsO=0.25 from peak (R,M)bin MODE R*=12.3km;M*=4.80;EPS.INTERVAL:a to 1 sigma %CONTRIB.=0.204 principal sources Source Category: CEUS gridded Individual fault Fault ID #*********End of (faults,subduction,random seismicity having>3%contribution) %contr.R(krn)M epsilonO (mean values). 3.79 36.8 5.90 0.30 hazard details if its contribution to mean hazard>2%: %contr.Rcd(krn)M epsilonO Site-to-src azirnuth(d) deaggregation corresponding to Atkinson-Boore06,200 bar *********# ********************Intermountain Seismic Belt*********************************** https://geohazards.usgs.gov/deaggillt/2008/out/Denison_2012.05.25_16.38.44.txt 512512012 ATTACHMENT E SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 07/1: UPDATED SETTLEMENT ANALYSES 1009740 SEll.MON G MWH FIGURE 1.1 ----~2~O FEET200CONTOURINTERVAL SETTL CLAMATIONPROJECTMILLTAILINGSREWHITE MESAOENISOE{)~ ~ MIN C rp.Mines(USA)0Denison PHASE 1 CONSOLIDATION: AFTER INTERIM COVER PLACEMENT, PRIOR TO DE-WATERING Notes t1 occurs at the beginning of tailings dewatering (1/1/2009) t2 occurs at midpoint of final cover placement over a given location t3 occurs at 99% of consolidation due to final cover It is assumed that there is an additional 3 feet of perched zones of saturation above the capillary fringe. SOIL PROPERTIES Tailings 2.75 Specific gravity of tailings, Gs-tailing Average calculated from laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western Colorado Testing, 1999) 86.31 Dry unit weight of tailings prior to t0, γd0-tailing (pcf)Calculated from a mass tonnage and tailings cell storage volume. (MWH, 2011) 16.2% Long-term moisture content of tailings above the capillary fringe, w Chen and Associates, 1987. This assumption is more conservative for settlement analysis than the value used in radon modeling (results in higher vertical stress). 100.29 Moist unit weight of tailings (above capillary fringe) prior to t0, γm0-tailing (pcf)Calculated 0.99 Void ratio of tailings prior to t0, e0-tailing Calculated 117.3 Saturated unit weight of tailings prior to t0, γsat0-tailing (pcf)Calculated 2.00 SPT blow count for tailings prior to t0, Nm (blows/foot)(uncorrected)Conservatively assumed a blow count of 2 which is representative of very loose granular soils. Range of uncorrected (SPT) blow counts for medium dense fine granular soils with wet unit weights of 110 to 130 pcf is 7 to 15 (Bowles, 1988). 45.1%Percent saturation of unsaturated tailings prior to t0, S0 (%)Calculated 30%Fines content of tailings, FCtailing (%)Average calculated from entirety of laboratory testing results (Western Colorado Testing, 1999. Chen and Associates, 1987. CSM, 1978. Denison, 2009.) Cover Soil 118.0 Maximum dry unit weight of cover soil γcover-max (pcf)Average calculated from laboratory testing results (UWM, 2012) 100.7 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 80% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 107.0 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 85% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 119.6 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 95% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 6.7% Long-term moisture content of cover soil, w (%) Estimated based on measured 15bar water content. (UWM, 2012) Saturated Zone 5,601.95 Elevation of Phreatic Surface at t0 (ft amsl)Average of water level measurements taken in first quarter 2009 8.00 Height of Capillary Fringe (ft)Estimated zone with 90%+ saturation: based on % fines and PI. (Fredlund, Fredlund, and Houston, 2003) 3.00 Combined Thickness of Perched Zones (ft)Assumed Cell 2W1 Cell 2W2 Cell 2W3 Cell 2W4 2W5-C 2W4-N 2W4-S 2W3-S Cell 2 East 2E1-N 2E1-1S 2E1-2S 2W7-C 2W7-N 2W7-S 2W6-N 2W6-C 2W6-S Elevation of Native Ground (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5590.00 5585.50 5592.50 5587.00 5591.50 5591.50 5599.00 5591.00 5589.00 5591.50 5593.00 5588.50 5591.00 5586.00 5585.00 From subgrade topographic drawing Elevation of Top of Tailings Prior to t0 (ft)5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5617.00 5621.40 5614.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 5613.50 Assumed a flat tailings surface at t0 with elevation of 5613.5' Elevation of Top of Interim Cover Prior to Consolidation (ft) 5618.00 5618.00 5617.30 5617.40 5617.10 5616.50 5616.50 5617.40 5622.00 5626.00 5622.00 5620.00 5621.50 5621.70 5619.20 5616.90 5616.50 5616.50 From CAD Drawing: 1009740X001.dwg (LiDAR). Some values adjusted to maintain a min. of 3ft of int. cover. Thickness of Tailings Prior to t0 (ft)15.00 17.50 19.00 23.50 28.00 21.00 26.50 22.00 25.50 22.40 23.50 24.50 22.00 20.50 25.00 22.50 27.50 28.50 Calculated Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)4.50 4.50 3.80 3.90 3.60 3.00 3.00 3.90 5.00 4.60 7.50 6.50 8.00 8.20 5.70 3.40 3.00 3.00 Calculated Elevation of Top of Capillary Fringe Prior to t1 (ft amsl)5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 5609.95 Calculated from phreatic surface and capillary fringe. Load Induced by Interim Cover, Δpint (psf)453.26 453.26 382.75 392.83 362.61 302.17 302.17 392.83 503.62 463.33 755.44 654.71 805.80 825.94 574.13 342.46 302.17 302.17 Calculated Observed Settlement Prior to t1 (ft)0.51 1.05 0.55 1.02 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.71 0.24 0.19 0.15 0.14 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.12 From monitoring point data Total Settlement Estimated by Model from t0 to t1 (ft)0.48 0.90 0.52 0.80 - - - 0.59 - - - - - - - - - - Calculated Zone of Saturated Tailings Thickness of Saturated Tailings from t0 to t1 (ft)14.45 16.95 18.45 22.95 27.45 20.45 25.95 21.45 21.45 13.95 21.95 23.95 21.45 19.95 24.45 21.95 26.95 27.95 Calculated Volume of Solids in Saturated Tailings at t0, Vs0, (ft3/ft2)7.27 8.52 9.28 11.54 13.80 10.28 13.05 10.79 10.79 7.01 11.04 12.04 10.79 10.03 12.30 11.04 13.55 14.06 Calculated Volume of Voids in Saturated Tailings at t0, Vv0, (ft3/ft2)7.18 8.42 9.17 11.41 13.64 10.16 12.90 10.66 10.66 6.93 10.91 11.90 10.66 9.91 12.15 10.91 13.39 13.89 Calculated Volume of Voids in Saturated Tailings at t1, Vv1, (ft3/ft2)6.70 7.52 8.65 10.61 13.62 10.15 12.85 10.07 10.42 6.74 10.76 11.76 10.49 9.88 12.13 10.87 13.33 13.77 Calculated using settlement model (using observed settlement where model is not available). Void Ratio of Saturated Tailings at t1, e1-tailing 0.86 0.80 0.88 0.86 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 Calculated Saturated unit weight of tailings at t1, γsat1-tailing (pcf)120.95 123.12 120.40 121.13 117.40 117.38 117.53 120.33 118.55 118.81 118.07 117.96 118.19 117.49 117.41 117.52 117.57 117.79 Calculated Elevation of Midpoint of Saturated Layer prior to t1 (ft AMSL)5604.22 5602.97 5602.22 5599.97 5597.72 5601.22 5598.47 5600.72 5600.72 5604.47 5600.47 5599.47 5600.72 5601.47 5599.22 5600.47 5597.97 5597.47 Calculated Effective Stress at Midpoint of Saturated Layer at t0, σ0'1169.92 1238.58 1279.77 1403.35 1526.93 1334.70 1485.74 1362.16 1713.18 1948.50 1476.18 1430.81 1362.16 1320.97 1444.55 1375.89 1513.20 1540.66 Calculated Effective Stress at Midpoint of Saturated Layer at t1, σ1'1643.95 1732.28 1686.30 1834.15 1890.51 1637.34 1790.33 1782.69 2228.08 2419.98 2238.69 2092.21 2175.94 2148.30 2019.64 1720.24 1818.29 1848.69 Calculated Observed Compression Index of Tailings, Cc-tails 0.83 1.30 0.88 1.11 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.88 0.38 0.56 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.21 Calculated based on observed settlement Settlement Model Start Date of Primary Consolidation, t0 5/17/1989 7/23/1991 7/23/1991 7/23/1991 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 4/4/1999 5/17/1989 8/4/1998 8/4/1998 8/4/1998 4/4/1999 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 7/27/2005 Calculated as 30 days before first survey of monitoring point. Date on Which 90% of Settlement had Occurred 1/1/1999 10/13/1996 11/3/1999 8/15/1998 N/A N/A N/A 10/31/2000 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated from t0 and elapsed time to t90. Time Elapsed for 90% of Consolidation to Occur, t90, (days)3,516 1,910 3,025 2,581 N/A N/A N/A 576 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated using the sqare root of time method (Bowles, 1992) Coefficient of Consolidation of Tailings Cv-tails (ft2/d)0.032 0.086 0.067 0.131 N/A N/A N/A 0.501 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated (Wray, 1996. Equation 9-6, page 109) Coefficient of Consolidation of Tailings Cv-tails (cm2/sec)0.00034 0.00093 0.00072 0.00141 0.00539 Calculated Dry Unit Weight of Tailings (in saturated zone) at t1, γdry-1 (pcf)92.01 95.42 91.15 92.29 86.44 86.39 86.64 91.03 88.23 88.65 87.48 87.31 87.67 86.57 86.45 86.62 86.69 87.05 Calculated Saturated Unit Weight of Tailings at t1, γmoist-1 (pcf)120.95 123.12 120.40 121.13 117.40 117.38 117.53 120.33 118.55 118.81 118.07 117.96 118.19 117.49 117.41 117.52 117.57 117.79 Calculated t0 occurs at midpoint of interim cover placement over a given location Was originally assumed to be 120 days before first monitoring event. This was determined to be unreasonable due to excessively high Cc values and impossibly low (even negative) void ratios. Has been revised to 30 days before first monitoring event, except for Cell 2W2, for which t0 coincides with the first monitoring event. PHASE 2 CONSOLIDATION: AFTER DE-WATERING BEGINS, PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF FINAL COVER Notes t0 occurs at midpoint of interim cover placement over a given location t1 occurs at the beginning of tailings dewatering (1/1/2009) t2 occurs at midpoint of final cover placement over a given location t3 occurs at 99% of consolidation due to final cover SOIL PROPERTIES Tailings 2.75 Specific gravity of tailings, Gs-tailing Average calculated from laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western Colorado Testing, 1999) 16.2% Long-term moisture content of unsaturated tailings, w Chen and Associates, 1987. This assumption is more conservative for settlement analysis than the value used in radon modeling (results in higher vertical stress). 30%Fines content of tailings, FCtailing (%)Average calculated from entirety of laboratory testing results (Western Colorado Testing, 1999. Chen and Associates, 1987. CSM, 1978. Denison, 2009.) 0.032 Coefficient of Consolidation of Tailings (lower bound), Cv-min (ft2/day)Calculated from phase 1 model 100.29 Moist unit weight of tailings (above capillary fringe) prior to t0, γm0-tailing (pcf)Calculated Cover Soil 118.0 Maximum dry unit weight of cover soil γcover-max (pcf)Average calculated from laboratory testing results (UWM, 2012) 100.7 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 80% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 107.0 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 85% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 119.6 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 95% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 6.7% Long-term moisture content of cover soil, w (%)Estimated based on measured 15bar water content. (UWM, 2012) Saturated Zone 5601.95 Phreatic Surface Elevation at t1 (ft AMSL)Calculated average of 2009 first-quarter water levels 8.00 Height of Capillary Fringe (ft)Estimated zone with 90%+ saturation: based on % fines and PI. (Fredlund, Fredlund, and Houston, 2003) 5,609.95 Elevation of Top of Capillary Fringe at t1 (ft amsl)Calculated from phreatic surface and capillary fringe. 7,590,661 Total Volume of Saturated Tailings at t2 (cf)Calculated assuming and average saturated thickness of 1.05 meters over the entire footprint of the bottom of the cell 5,593.03 Phreatic Surface Elevation at t2 (ft AMSL)Calculated from total volume of saturated tailings and stage-storage curve for Cell 2 3.00 Combined Thickness of Perched Zones (ft)Assumed Cell 2W1 Cell 2W2 Cell 2W3 Cell 2W4 2W5-C 2W4-N 2W4-S 2W3-S Cell 2 East 2E1-N 2E1-1S 2E1-2S 2W7-C 2W7-N 2W7-S 2W6-N 2W6-C 2W6-S Elevation of Native Ground (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5590.00 5585.50 5592.50 5587.00 5591.50 5591.50 5599.00 5591.00 5589.00 5591.50 5593.00 5588.50 5591.00 5586.00 5585.00 From subgrade topographic drawing Elevation of Top of Tailings at t1 (ft)5613.02 5612.60 5612.98 5612.70 5613.48 5613.49 5613.45 5612.91 5616.76 5621.21 5614.35 5613.36 5613.33 5613.47 5613.48 5613.46 5613.44 5613.38 Calculated from intial tailings surface and Phase 1 settlement Elevation of Top of Interim Cover at t1 (ft)5617.52 5617.10 5616.78 5616.60 5617.08 5616.49 5616.45 5616.81 5621.76 5625.81 5621.85 5619.86 5621.33 5621.67 5619.18 5616.86 5616.44 5616.38 Calculated Thickness of Tailings at t1 (ft)14.52 16.60 18.48 22.70 27.98 20.99 26.45 21.41 25.26 22.21 23.35 24.36 21.83 20.47 24.98 22.46 27.44 28.38 Calculated Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)4.50 4.50 3.80 3.90 3.60 3.00 3.00 3.90 5.00 4.60 7.50 6.50 8.00 8.20 5.70 3.40 3.00 3.00 Calculated Load Induced by Interim Cover, Δpint (psf)453.26 453.26 382.75 392.83 362.61 302.17 302.17 392.83 503.62 463.33 755.44 654.71 805.80 825.94 574.13 342.46 302.17 302.17 Calculated Void Ratio of Saturated Tailings at t1, e1-tailing 0.86 0.80 0.88 0.86 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.89 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 Calculated based on initial void ratio and Phase 1 consolidation Dry Unit Weight of Saturated Tailings at t1, γdry-1 (pcf)92.01 95.42 91.15 92.29 86.44 86.39 86.64 91.03 88.23 88.65 87.48 87.31 87.67 86.57 86.45 86.62 86.69 87.05 Calculated Saturated Unit Weight of Tailings at t1, γsat-1 (pcf)120.95 123.12 120.40 121.13 117.40 117.38 117.53 120.33 118.55 118.81 118.07 117.96 118.19 117.49 117.41 117.52 117.57 117.79 Calculated Compression Index of Tailings, Cc-tails 0.83 1.30 0.88 1.11 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.88 0.38 0.56 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.21 Calculated using Phase 1 settle model (or observed settlement where model is unavailable). Coefficient of Consolidation of Tailings Cv-tails (ft2/d)0.032 0.086 0.067 0.131 N/A N/A N/A 0.501 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated (Wray, 1996. Equation 9-6, page 109) Settlement Phase 2 Upper Zone Elevation of Top of Upper Zone at t1 (ft)5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 5604.95 Elevation of Bottom of Upper Zone at t1 (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5599.00 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 Elevation of Midpoint of Upper Zone at t1 (ft)5601.72 5600.47 5599.72 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5601.97 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 5598.99 Effective Stress at Midpoint of Upper Zone at t1, σ1-top' (psf)1742.19 1793.83 1779.16 1811.87 1819.03 1759.31 1757.02 1824.13 2301.52 2540.29 2306.42 2105.22 2255.79 2282.29 2030.66 1798.19 1756.38 1752.83 Calculated Effective Stress at Midpoint of Upper Zone at t2, σ2-top' (psf)1756.13 1885.76 1917.89 1996.59 2003.74 1944.03 1941.73 2008.85 2486.24 2540.29 2491.13 2289.94 2440.50 2467.00 2215.37 1982.90 1941.09 1937.55 Calculated Anticipated Consolidation of Upper Zone from t1 to t2, Stop (ft)0.01 0.14 0.16 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.23 0.08 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06 Calculated using consolidation theory (Coduto, 1999. Equation 12.20, Page 436) Phase 2 Lower Zone Elevation of Top of Lower Zone at t1 (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5599.00 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 Elevation of Bottom of Lower Zone (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5590.00 5585.50 5592.50 5587.00 5591.50 5591.50 5599.00 5591.00 5589.00 5591.50 5593.00 5588.50 5591.00 5586.00 5585.00 Elevation of Midpoint of Lower Zone (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5591.51 5589.26 5592.76 5590.01 5592.26 5592.26 5599.00 5592.01 5591.01 5592.26 5593.01 5590.76 5592.01 5589.51 5589.01 Effective Stress at Midpoint of Lower Zone at t1, σ1-bott' (psf)N/A N/A N/A 2250.79 2353.85 2101.46 2251.76 2213.61 2679.02 N/A 2694.63 2548.24 2630.89 2611.35 2483.06 2182.58 2279.00 2305.29 Calculated Effective Stress at Midpoint of Lower Zone at t2, σ2-bott' (psf)N/A N/A N/A 2807.42 2910.48 2658.09 2808.39 2770.24 3235.64 N/A 3251.26 3104.87 3187.51 3167.98 3039.68 2739.21 2835.63 2861.92 Calculated Anticipated Consolidation of Lower Zone from t1 to t2, Sbott (ft)N/A N/A N/A 0.17 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.02 N/A 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.08 Calculated using consolidation theory (Coduto, 1999. Equation 12.20, Page 436) Total Anticipated Consolidation from t1 to t2, Stot (ft)0.01 0.14 0.16 0.47 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.30 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07 0.14 Calculated using consolidation theory (Coduto, 1999. Equation 12.20, Page 436) Thickness of Saturated Tailings at t1 (ft)14.45 16.95 18.45 22.95 27.45 20.45 25.95 21.45 21.45 13.95 21.95 23.95 21.45 19.95 24.45 21.95 26.95 27.95 Calculated Volume of Solids in Saturated Tailings at t1, Vs1, (ft3/ft2)7.75 9.42 9.80 12.34 13.82 10.29 13.10 11.38 11.03 7.20 11.19 12.18 10.96 10.06 12.32 11.08 13.61 14.18 Calculated Volume of Voids in Saturated Tailings at t1, Vv1, (ft3/ft2)6.70 7.52 8.65 10.61 13.62 10.15 12.85 10.07 10.42 6.74 10.76 11.76 10.49 9.88 12.13 10.87 13.33 13.77 Calculated Volume of Voids in Saturated Tailings at t2, Vv2, (ft3/ft2)6.69 7.38 8.49 10.13 13.60 10.15 12.79 9.77 10.32 6.74 10.72 11.71 10.45 9.88 12.12 10.84 13.27 13.63 Calculated based on e1 and settlement from t1 to t2 Void Ratio of Saturated Tailings at t2, e2-tailing 0.86 0.78 0.87 0.82 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 Calculated based on e1 and settlement from t1 to t2 Length of Longest Flow Path, Hdr-2 (ft)1.72 2.97 3.72 5.97 N/A N/A N/A 5.22 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated (assumes double drainage conditions (Lambe and Whitman, 1969. Pg 413)) Time for 90% of Consolidation to Occur, t90 (years)0.22 0.23 0.48 0.63 N/A N/A N/A 0.14 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated using consolidation theory. (Terzaghi, et al., 1996. Pages 223 - 240) Average Time for 90% of Consolidation to Occur, t90-avg (yr)0.34 Calculated using consolidation theory. (Terzaghi, et al., 1996. Pages 223 - 240) Maximum Time for 90% of Consolidation to Occur, t90-max (yr)0.63 Calculated using consolidation theory. (Terzaghi, et al., 1996. Pages 223 - 240) PHASE 3 CONSOLIDATION: AFTER PLACEMENT OF FINAL COVER Notes t0 occurs at midpoint of interim cover placement over a given location t1 occurs at the beginning of tailings dewatering (1/1/2009) t2 occurs at midpoint of final cover placement over a given location t3 occurs at 99% of consolidation due to final cover SOIL PROPERTIES Tailings 2.75 Specific gravity of tailings, Gs-tailing Average calculated from laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western Colorado Testing, 1999) 16.2% Long-term moisture content of unsaturated tailings, w Chen and Associates, 1987. This assumption is more conservative for settlement analysis than the value used in radon modeling (results in higher vertical stress). 30%Fines content of tailings, FCtailing (%)Average calculated from entirety of laboratory testing results (Western Colorado Testing, 1999. Chen and Associates, 1987. CSM, 1978. Denison, 2009.) 0.032 Coefficient of Consolidation of Tailings (lower bound), Cv-min (ft2/day)Calculated from phase 1 model 100.29 Moist unit weight of tailings (above capillary fringe) prior to t0, γm0-tailing (pcf)Calculated Cover Soil 118.0 Maximum dry unit weight of cover soil γcover-max (pcf)Average calculated from laboratory testing results (UWM, 2012) 100.7 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 80% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 107.0 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 85% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 119.6 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 95% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 6.7% Long-term moisture content of cover soil, w (%)Estimated based on measured 15bar water content. (UWM, 2012) 106.0 Dry unit weight of rock mulch, γrock-dry (pcf)From most recent radon modeling (Denison, 2012) 113.1 Moist unit weight of rock mulch, γmulch-moist (pcf)Calculated based on long-term moisture content and dry unit weight Saturated Zone 7,590,661 Total Volume of Saturated Tailings at t2 (cf)Calculated assuming and average saturated thickness of 1.05 meters over the entire footprint of the bottom of the cell 5,593.03 Phreatic Surface Elevation at t2 (ft AMSL)Calculated from total volume of saturated tailings and stage-storage curve for Cell 2 8.00 Height of Capillary Fringe (ft)Estimated zone with 90%+ saturation: based on % fines and PI. (Fredlund, Fredlund, and Houston, 2003) 5,601.03 Elevation of Top of Capillary Fringe at t2 (ft amsl)Calculated from phreatic surface and capillary fringe. 3.00 Combined Thickness of Perched Zones (ft)Assumed Cell 2W1 Cell 2W2 Cell 2W3 Cell 2W4 2W5-C 2W4-N 2W4-S 2W3-S Cell 2 East 2E1-N 2E1-1S 2E1-2S 2W7-C 2W7-N 2W7-S 2W6-N 2W6-C 2W6-S Elevation of Native Ground (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5590.00 5585.50 5592.50 5587.00 5591.50 5591.50 5599.00 5591.00 5589.00 5591.50 5593.00 5588.50 5591.00 5586.00 5585.00 From subgrade topographic drawing Elevation of Top of Tailings at t2 (ft)5613.01 5612.46 5612.82 5612.23 5613.46 5613.48 5613.40 5612.61 5616.66 5621.21 5614.31 5613.30 5613.29 5613.46 5613.47 5613.43 5613.37 5613.24 Calculated from intial tailings surface and Phase 1 & Phase 2 settlement Elevation of Top of Interim Cover at t2 (ft)5617.51 5616.96 5616.62 5616.13 5617.06 5616.48 5616.40 5616.51 5621.66 5625.81 5621.81 5619.80 5621.29 5621.66 5619.17 5616.83 5616.37 5616.24 Calculated Thickness of Tailings at t2 (ft)14.51 16.46 18.32 22.23 27.96 20.98 26.40 21.11 25.16 22.21 23.31 24.30 21.79 20.46 24.97 22.43 27.37 28.24 Calculated Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)4.50 4.50 3.80 3.90 3.60 3.00 3.00 3.90 5.00 4.60 7.50 6.50 8.00 8.20 5.70 3.40 3.00 3.00 Calculated Load Induced by Interim Cover, Δpint (psf)453.26 453.26 382.75 392.83 362.61 302.17 302.17 392.83 503.62 463.33 755.44 654.71 805.80 825.94 574.13 342.46 302.17 302.17 Calculated Load Induced by Final Cover, Δpfinal (psf)933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 Calculated - final cover configuration per radon modeling (Denison, 2012) Void Ratio of Saturated Tailings at t2, e2-tailing 0.86 0.78 0.87 0.82 0.98 0.99 0.98 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.96 0.96 0.95 0.98 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 Calculated based on initial void ratio and Phase 1 & Phase 2 consolidation Dry Unit Weight of Tailings at t2, γdry-2 (pcf)92.08 96.22 91.94 94.23 86.49 86.42 86.81 92.34 88.65 88.65 87.65 87.51 87.84 86.59 86.48 86.73 86.90 87.48 Calculated Saturated Unit Weight of Tailings at t2, γsat-2 (pcf)120.99 123.63 120.91 122.37 117.44 117.39 117.65 121.16 118.82 118.81 118.18 118.09 118.30 117.50 117.44 117.59 117.70 118.07 Calculated Compression Index of Tailings, Cc-tails 0.83 1.30 0.88 1.11 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.88 0.38 0.56 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.03 0.02 0.07 0.11 0.21 Calculated using Phase 1 settle model (or observed settlement where model is unavailable). Coefficient of Consolidation of Tailings Cv-tails (ft2/d)0.03 0.09 0.07 0.13 N/A N/A N/A 0.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated (Wray, 1996. Equation 9-6, page 109) Settlement Phase 3 Upper Zone (Capillary Fringe) Elevation of Top of Upper Zone at t2 (ft)5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 5604.03 Elevation of Bottom of Upper Zone at t2 (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5599.00 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 Elevation of Midpoint of Upper Zone at t2 (ft)5601.26 5600.01 5599.26 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5601.51 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 5598.53 Effective Stress at Midpoint of Upper Zone at t2, σ1-upper' (psf)1811.14 1933.36 1962.71 2019.02 2056.33 1997.60 1991.88 2043.29 2533.60 2594.96 2542.44 2340.16 2491.97 2520.67 2268.70 2035.09 1990.14 1981.11 Calculated Effective Stress at Midpoint of Upper Zone at t3, σ2-upper' (psf)2744.62 2866.84 2896.20 2952.51 2989.81 2931.09 2925.37 2976.77 3467.09 3528.45 3475.93 3273.65 3425.46 3454.16 3202.18 2968.58 2923.62 2914.59 Calculated Anticipated Consolidation of Upper Zone from t2 to t3, Supper (ft)0.45 1.00 0.76 1.11 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.85 0.29 0.19 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.10 0.20 Calculated using consolidation theory (Coduto, 1999. Equation 12.20, Page 436) Phase 3 Lower Zone (Below Phreatic Surface) Elevation of Top of Lower Zone at t2 (ft)N/A N/A N/A 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 N/A 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 5593.03 Elevation of Bottom of Lower Zone at t2 (ft)N/A N/A N/A 5590.00 5585.50 5592.50 5587.00 5591.50 5591.50 N/A 5591.00 5589.00 5591.50 5593.00 5588.50 5591.00 5586.00 5585.00 Elevation of Midpoint of Lower Zone at t2 (ft)N/A N/A N/A 5591.51 5589.26 5592.76 5590.01 5592.26 5592.26 N/A 5592.01 5591.01 5592.26 5593.01 5590.76 5592.01 5589.51 5589.01 Effective Stress at Midpoint of Lower Zone at t2, σ2-low' (psf)N/A N/A N/A 2782.78 2909.38 2657.75 2805.40 2754.51 3230.14 N/A 3248.94 3101.78 3185.27 3167.67 3039.14 2737.76 2831.79 2853.88 Calculated Effective Stress at Midpoint of Lower Zone at t3, σ3-low' (psf)N/A N/A N/A 3716.27 3842.87 3591.23 3738.88 3688.00 4163.63 N/A 4182.43 4035.26 4118.76 4101.16 3972.63 3671.24 3765.28 3787.36 Calculated Anticipated Consolidation of Middle Zone from t2 to t3, Smid (ft)N/A N/A N/A 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.03 N/A 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.11 Calculated using consolidation theory (Coduto, 1999. Equation 12.20, Page 436) Total Anticipated Consolidation from t2 to t3, Stot (ft)0.45 1.00 0.76 1.34 0.04 0.02 0.12 0.95 0.33 0.19 0.13 0.15 0.13 0.02 0.02 0.08 0.15 0.31 Calculated using consolidation theory (Coduto, 1999. Equation 12.20, Page 436) Thickness of Saturated Tailings at t2 (ft)5.53 8.03 9.53 14.03 18.53 11.53 17.03 12.53 12.53 5.03 13.03 15.03 12.53 11.03 15.53 13.03 18.03 19.03 Calculated Volume of Solids in Saturated Tailings at t2, Vs2, (ft3/ft2)2.97 4.50 5.10 7.70 9.34 5.80 8.61 6.74 6.47 2.60 6.65 7.66 6.41 5.56 7.83 6.58 9.13 9.70 Calculated Volume of Voids in Saturated Tailings at t2, Vv2, (ft3/ft2)2.56 3.53 4.42 6.32 9.19 5.72 8.41 5.79 6.05 2.43 6.37 7.36 6.11 5.46 7.70 6.44 8.90 9.33 Calculated Volume of Voids in Saturated Tailings at t3, Vv3, (ft3/ft2)2.11 2.52 3.66 4.99 9.15 5.70 8.29 4.84 5.73 2.24 6.24 7.22 5.98 5.44 7.68 6.37 8.75 9.02 Calculated based on e1 and settlement in Phases 1 - 3 Void Ratio of Saturated Tailings at t3, e3-tailing 0.71 0.56 0.72 0.65 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.72 0.89 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.93 Calculated based on e1 and settlement in Phases 1 - 3 Total Anticipated Consolidation from t0 to t3, Stot (ft)0.97 2.19 1.47 2.83 0.08 0.04 0.22 1.96 0.67 0.38 0.32 0.34 0.34 0.06 0.05 0.14 0.28 0.56 Length of Longest Flow Path, Hdr-3 (ft)2.53 5.03 6.53 11.03 15.53 8.53 14.03 9.53 9.53 2.03 10.03 12.03 9.53 8.03 12.53 10.03 15.03 16.03 Calculated (assumes single drainage conditions) Time for 90% of Consolidation to Occur, t90 (years)0.47 0.67 1.45 2.12 N/A N/A N/A 0.42 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Calculated using consolidation theory. (Terzaghi, et al., 1996. Pages 223 - 240) Average Time for 90% of Consolidation to Occur, t90-avg (years)1.03 Calculated using consolidation theory. (Terzaghi, et al., 1996. Pages 223 - 240) Maximum Time for 90% of Consolidation to Occur, t90-max (years)2.12 Calculated using consolidation theory. (Terzaghi, et al., 1996. Pages 223 - 240) CREEP SETTLEMENT Notes t0 occurs at midpoint of interim cover placement over a given location t1 occurs at the beginning of tailings dewatering (1/1/2009) t2 occurs at midpoint of final cover placement over a given location t3 occurs at 99% of consolidation due to final cover SOIL PROPERTIES Tailings 0.020 Cα/Cc From: (Terzaghi, Peck, and Mesri, 1996. Page 110) 0.008 Average Secondary Compression Index, C -avg Calculated using the average Cc value 0.388 Average Compression Index of Tailings Calculated from Phase 1, Cc-tails Calculated using Phase 1 settlement model (using observed settlement where model is not available). Cell 2W1 Cell 2W2 Cell 2W3 Cell 2W4 2W5-C 2W4-N 2W4-S 2W3-S Cell 2 East 2E1-N 2E1-1S 2E1-2S 2W7-C 2W7-N 2W7-S 2W6-N 2W6-C 2W6-S Elevation of Native Ground (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5590.00 5585.50 5592.50 5587.00 5591.50 5591.50 5599.00 5591.00 5589.00 5591.50 5593.00 5588.50 5591.00 5586.00 5585.00 From subgrade topographic drawing Elevation of Top of Tailings at t3 (ft)5613.01 5612.46 5612.82 5612.23 5613.46 5613.48 5613.40 5612.61 5616.66 5621.21 5614.31 5613.30 5613.29 5613.46 5613.47 5613.43 5613.37 5613.24 Calculated from intial tailings surface and Phase 1 & Phase 2 settlement Elevation of Top of Interim Cover at t3 (ft)5617.51 5616.96 5616.62 5616.13 5617.06 5616.48 5616.40 5616.51 5621.66 5625.81 5621.81 5619.80 5621.29 5621.66 5619.17 5616.83 5616.37 5616.24 Calculated Thickness of Tailings at t3 (ft)14.51 16.46 18.32 22.23 27.96 20.98 26.40 21.11 25.16 22.21 23.31 24.30 21.79 20.46 24.97 22.43 27.37 28.24 Calculated Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)4.50 4.50 3.80 3.90 3.60 3.00 3.00 3.90 5.00 4.60 7.50 6.50 8.00 8.20 5.70 3.40 3.00 3.00 Calculated Thickness of Final Cover (Above Interim Cover) (ft)8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 From Radon Modeling (Denison, 2012) Thickness of Saturated Tailings, Including Perched Zones (ft)5.53 8.03 9.53 14.03 18.53 11.53 17.03 12.53 12.53 5.03 13.03 15.03 12.53 11.03 15.53 13.03 18.03 19.03 Calculated Void Ratio of Saturated Tailings at t3, e3-tailing 0.71 0.56 0.72 0.65 0.98 0.98 0.96 0.72 0.89 0.86 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.93 Calculated based on initial void ratio and settlement during Phases 1 - 3 Change in Void Ratio Due to Creep Over 1,000 years, Δe 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 0.032 Calculated using fomula in Holtz and Kovacs, 1981. Pages 406-408 Final Void Ratio After 1,000 years, efinal 0.68 0.53 0.69 0.62 0.95 0.95 0.93 0.69 0.85 0.83 0.91 0.91 0.90 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.93 0.90 Calculated Estimated Settlement due to 1,000 years of Creep, Screep (ft)0.10 0.16 0.18 0.27 0.30 0.18 0.27 0.23 0.21 0.09 0.21 0.25 0.21 0.18 0.25 0.21 0.29 0.31 Calculated using Holtz and Kovacs, 1981. Equation 8-4, page 413. UNSATURATED ZONE SETTLEMENT DUE TO SEISMIC SHAKING 0.15 Peak Horizontal Acceleration, PHA (g) Technical Memorandum: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis White Mesa Uranium Facility Blanding, Utah. (MWH, 2012) 6.00 Earthquake Magnitude, m Technical Memorandum: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis White Mesa Uranium Facility Blanding, Utah. (MWH, 2012) 51.50 Site-Source Distance, r (km) Mean distance from site for earthquakes contributing to the probabilistic hazard at the 9,900 year return period. (Technical Memorandum: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis White Mesa Uranium Facility Blanding, Utah. (MWH, 2012)) 13.25 Equivalent Number of Uniform Strain Cycles, N Calculated (Stewart and Whang, 2003. Equation 6) 2.00 SPT blow count for tailings, Nm (blows/foot)(uncorrected)Conservatively assumed a blow count of 2 which is representative of very loose granular soils. Range of uncorrected (SPT) blow counts for medium dense fine granular soils with wet unit weights of 110 to 130 pcf is 7 to 15 (Bowles, 1988). 108.56 Mass Unit Weight of Soil, γ (pcf)Calculated over the upper 12m of the final tailings cell configuration 1.74 Mass Density of Soil, ρ (g/cm3)Calculated over the upper 12m of the final tailings cell configuration 11,072 Maximum Shear Modulus, Gmax Calculated based on Shear Wave Velocity and Mass Density of Soil (Stewart and Whang, 2003. Page 7) Calculated Range of Values for Average Soil Shear Wave Velocity in Upper 12m, Vs-12 261.63 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 30) Originally from Seed and Idriss 1983 - Developed for sands and silty sands 347.12 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 21) Originally from Ohba and Toriuma 1973 - Developed for alluvial materials near Osaka, Japan 349.88 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 23) Originally from Ohsaki 1963 - Developed for Japanese sands. 267.83 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings and specified parameters for "intermediate" soils. (USACE, 1987. Equation 24) Originally from Ohsaki and Iwasaki 1973 - Applies to multiple soil types, . 356.38 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Table 4, Equation 1) Originally from Ohta and Goto 1978 - Not dependent on soil type 358.18 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings and depth. (USACE, 1987. Table 4, Equation 5) Originally from Ohta and Goto 1978 - not dependent on soil type 327.60 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 31) Originally from Imai and Yoshimura 1970 - Independent of soil type 379.35 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 32) Originally from Imai and Yoshimura 1975 - Independent of soil type 373.66 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 33) Originally from Imai, Fumotot, and Yokota 1975 - Independent of soil type 235.51 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 34) Originally from Imai and Tonuchi, 1982 - Independent of soil type 395.32 Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Table 4, Equation 12) Originally from Imari and Tonouchi 1982 - For all soils 332.04 Average Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (ft/sec)Calculated 101.20 Average Shear wave velocity in the upper 12m, Vs-12 (m/sec)Calculated 79.74 Value Used for Average Soil Shear Wave Velocity in Upper 12m, Vs-12 (m/s)Calculated based on the blow count for the tailings. (USACE, 1987. Equation 30) Originally from Seed and Idriss 1983 - Developed for sands and silty sands Cell 2W1 Cell 2W2 Cell 2W3 Cell 2W4 2W5-C 2W4-N 2W4-S 2W3-S Cell 2 East 2E1-N 2E1-1S 2E1-2S 2W7-C 2W7-N 2W7-S 2W6-N 2W6-C 2W6-S Elevation of Native Ground (ft)5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5590.00 5585.50 5592.50 5587.00 5591.50 5591.50 5599.00 5591.00 5589.00 5591.50 5593.00 5588.50 5591.00 5586.00 5585.00 From subgrade topographic drawing Elevation of Top of Tailings at t3 (ft)5612.56 5611.46 5612.06 5610.89 5613.42 5613.46 5613.28 5611.66 5616.33 5621.02 5614.18 5613.16 5613.16 5613.44 5613.45 5613.36 5613.22 5612.94 Calculated from intial tailings surface and Phase 1 - 3 settlement Elevation of Top of Interim Cover at t3 (ft)5617.06 5615.96 5615.86 5614.79 5617.02 5616.46 5616.28 5615.56 5621.33 5625.62 5621.68 5619.66 5621.16 5621.64 5619.15 5616.76 5616.22 5615.94 Calculated Thickness of Tailings at t3 (ft)14.06 15.46 17.56 20.89 27.92 20.96 26.28 20.16 24.83 22.02 23.18 24.16 21.66 20.44 24.95 22.36 27.22 27.94 Calculated Thickness of Interim Cover (ft)4.50 4.50 3.80 3.90 3.60 3.00 3.00 3.90 5.00 4.60 7.50 6.50 8.00 8.20 5.70 3.40 3.00 3.00 Calculated Elevation of Top of Final Cover at t3 (ft)5625.26 5624.16 5624.06 5622.99 5625.22 5624.66 5624.48 5623.76 5629.53 5633.82 5629.88 5627.86 5629.36 5629.84 5627.35 5624.96 5624.42 5624.14 Calculated Load Induced by Interim Cover, Δpint (psf)453.26 453.26 382.75 392.83 362.61 302.17 302.17 392.83 503.62 463.33 755.44 654.71 805.80 825.94 574.13 342.46 302.17 302.17 Calculated Load Induced by Final Cover, Δpfinal (psf)933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 933.49 Calculated Elevation of Settlement Measurement (ft) 5598.50 5596.00 5594.50 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5599.00 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 5593.04 Just above Phreatic surface (or at contact with native ground if no phreatic surface) Depth of Settlement Measurement, z (ft)26.76 28.16 29.56 29.95 32.18 31.63 31.44 30.72 36.49 34.82 36.84 34.82 36.32 36.81 34.31 31.92 31.39 31.10 Calculated Depth of Settlement Measurement, z (m)8.16 8.58 9.01 9.13 9.81 9.64 9.58 9.36 11.12 10.61 11.23 10.61 11.07 11.22 10.46 9.73 9.57 9.48 Calculated Coefficient a1 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 -13.24 Calculated (Stewart and Whang, 2003. Page 3) Coefficient a2 17.66 17.47 17.30 17.26 17.05 17.10 17.12 17.18 16.77 16.86 16.75 16.86 16.78 16.75 16.90 17.08 17.12 17.15 Calculated (Stewart and Whang, 2003. Page 3) Coefficient a3 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 38.83 Calculated (Stewart and Whang, 2003. Page 3) Stress Reduction Factor, rd (from Stewart and Whang, 2003)0.38 0.37 0.36 0.35 0.34 0.34 0.34 0.35 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.32 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.35 Calculated (Stewart and Whang, 2003. Equation 5a) Overburden Pressure, σ0 (psf)2849.52 3054.15 3212.02 3293.34 3477.36 3420.94 3404.14 3360.99 3921.41 3642.48 3952.22 3748.59 3901.14 3943.58 3691.54 3452.11 3399.40 3373.45 Calculated Overburden Pressure, σ0 (g/cm2)1394.31 1494.45 1571.70 1611.49 1701.53 1673.92 1665.70 1644.59 1918.81 1782.32 1933.89 1834.24 1908.89 1929.66 1806.33 1689.18 1663.38 1650.69 Calculated γeff*Geff/Gmax 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0006 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 0.0005 Calculated (Stewart and Whang, 2003. Equation 4) Variation of Shear Strain Amplitude, γeff (%)1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 From Stewart and Whang, 2003. Figure 3 Vertical Strain for 15 cycles of shaking, v,n=15 (%)1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 1.30 From Stewart and Whang, 2003. Figure 5 CN 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 From Stewart and Whang, 2003. Figure 4 Vertical Strain , (%)1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 1.62 From Stewart and Whang, 2003. Pages 2 and 7 Settlement, S (ft)0.43 0.46 0.48 0.49 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.59 0.56 0.60 0.56 0.59 0.60 0.56 0.52 0.51 0.50 Calculated (volumetric strain applied to entire soil column) NOTES t0 occurs at midpoint of interim cover placement over a given location t1 occurs at the beginning of tailings dewatering (1/1/2009) t2 occurs at midpoint of final cover placement over a given location t3 occurs at 99% of consolidation due to final cover It is assumed that there is an additional 3 feet of perched zones of saturation above the capillary fringe. REFERENCES Bowles, J., 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. Bowles, J., 1992. Engineering Properties of Soils, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. Chen and Associates, Inc., 1987. Physical Soil Data, White Mesa Project, Blanding Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Coduto, D. P., 1999. Geotechnical Engineering Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison), 2012. Responses to Interrogatories – Round 1 for Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, March 12. Attachment H - Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 12/1: Revised Appendix C, Radon Emanation Modeling, to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of Reclamation Plan, Fredlund, M.D., Fredlund, D.G., Houston, S.L., and Houston, W., 2003. Assessment of Unsaturated Soil Properties for Seepage Modeling Through Tailings and Mine Wastes, Proceedings of Tailings and Mine Waste 2003. Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice Hall, Inc. New Jersey Lambe, T. W., and Whitman, R. V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. John Wiley and Sons, New York. MWH, 2011. White Mesa Mill Updated Tailings Cover Design Report. Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. September 2011. MWH, 2012. Technical Memorandum: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for the White Mesa Uranium Facility. Blanding, Utah. September, 2011. Stewart, L. P., and D. H. Whang, 2003. Simplified Procedure to Estimate Ground Settlement from Seismic Compression in Compacted Soils. 2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Terzaghi, K., R. Peck, and G. Mesri, 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1987. Examination of Existing Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus Correlations in Soils. Miscellaneous Paper GL-87-22. Department of the Army, Washington, DC. University of Wisconsin-Madison (UWM), Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory, 2012. Compaction and Hydraulic Properties of Soils from Banding, Utah. Geotechnics Report NO. 12-41 by C.H. Benson and X. Wang. July 24. Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999. Report of Soil Sample Testing of Tailings Collected from Cell 2 and Cell 3, Prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. May 4. Wray, W. K., 1986. Measuring Engineering Properties of Soils. Prentice-Hall, Inc., New Jersey. 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 5620.2 5620.4 5620.6 5620.8 5621.0 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 8 9 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 0 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 1 5/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 2 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 3 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 4 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 5 5/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 6 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 7 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 8 5/ 1 7 / 1 9 9 9 5/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 0 5/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 1 5/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 2 5/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 3 5/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 4 5/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 5 5/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 6 5/ 1 7 / 2 0 0 7 5/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W1 2W1 (Measured) 2W1 Model - Primary Consolidation Only 2W1 Model - Primary and Secondary Consolidation 5620.0 5620.2 5620.4 5620.6 5620.8 5621.0 5621.2 5621.4 5621.6 5621.8 5622.0 5622.2 5622.4 5622.6 5622.8 5623.0 8/ 2 8 / 1 9 9 1 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 2 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 3 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 4 8/ 2 8 / 1 9 9 5 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 6 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 7 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 8 8/ 2 8 / 1 9 9 9 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 0 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 1 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 2 8/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 3 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 4 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W2 2W2 (Measured) 2W2 Model - Primary Consolidation Only 2W2 Model - Primary and Secondary Consolidation 5617.0 5617.2 5617.4 5617.6 5617.8 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 8/ 2 8 / 1 9 9 1 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 2 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 3 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 4 8/ 2 8 / 1 9 9 5 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 6 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 7 8/ 2 7 / 1 9 9 8 8/ 2 8 / 1 9 9 9 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 0 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 1 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 2 8/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 3 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 4 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 8 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 7 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W3 2W3 (Measured) 2W3 Model - Primary Consolidation Only 2W3 Model - Primary and Secondary Consolidation 5616.0 5616.2 5616.4 5616.6 5616.8 5617.0 5617.2 5617.4 5617.6 5617.8 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 7/ 2 3 / 1 9 9 1 7/ 2 2 / 1 9 9 2 7/ 2 2 / 1 9 9 3 7/ 2 2 / 1 9 9 4 7/ 2 3 / 1 9 9 5 7/ 2 2 / 1 9 9 6 7/ 2 2 / 1 9 9 7 7/ 2 2 / 1 9 9 8 7/ 2 3 / 1 9 9 9 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 0 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 1 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 2 7/ 2 3 / 2 0 0 3 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 4 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 5 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 6 7/ 2 3 / 2 0 0 7 7/ 2 2 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W4 2W4 (Measured) 2W4 Model - Primary Consolidation Only 2W4 Model - Primary and Secondary Consolidation 5616.0 5616.2 5616.4 5616.6 5616.8 5617.0 5617.2 5617.4 5617.6 5617.8 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 4/ 4 / 1 9 9 9 4/ 3 / 2 0 0 0 4/ 3 / 2 0 0 1 4/ 3 / 2 0 0 2 4/ 4 / 2 0 0 3 4/ 3 / 2 0 0 4 4/ 3 / 2 0 0 5 4/ 3 / 2 0 0 6 4/ 4 / 2 0 0 7 4/ 3 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W3-S 2W3-S (Measured) 2W3-S Model - Primary Consolidation Only 2W3-S Model - Primary and Secondary Consolidation 5617.0 5617.2 5617.4 5617.6 5617.8 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W5-C 2W5-C (Measured) 2W5-C Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 5620.2 5620.4 5620.6 5620.8 5621.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W4-N 2W4-N (Measured) 2W4-N Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5615.0 5615.2 5615.4 5615.6 5615.8 5616.0 5616.2 5616.4 5616.6 5616.8 5617.0 5617.2 5617.4 5617.6 5617.8 5618.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W4-S 2W4-S (Measured) 2W4-S Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5623.0 5623.2 5623.4 5623.6 5623.8 5624.0 5624.2 5624.4 5624.6 5624.8 5625.0 5625.2 5625.4 5625.6 5625.8 5626.0 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 8 9 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 0 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 1 6/ 1 5 / 1 9 9 2 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 3 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 4 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 5 6/ 1 5 / 1 9 9 6 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 7 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 8 6/ 1 6 / 1 9 9 9 6/ 1 5 / 2 0 0 0 6/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 1 6/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 2 6/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 3 6/ 1 5 / 2 0 0 4 6/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 5 6/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 6 6/ 1 6 / 2 0 0 7 6/ 1 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at Cell 2 East Cell 2 East (Measured) Cell 2 East Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5626.0 5626.2 5626.4 5626.6 5626.8 5627.0 5627.2 5627.4 5627.6 5627.8 5628.0 5628.2 5628.4 5628.6 5628.8 5629.0 9/ 3 / 1 9 9 8 9/ 3 / 1 9 9 9 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 0 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 1 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 2 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 3 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 4 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 6 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 7 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2E1-N 2E1-N (Measured) 2E1-N Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5622.0 5622.2 5622.4 5622.6 5622.8 5623.0 5623.2 5623.4 5623.6 5623.8 5624.0 5624.2 5624.4 5624.6 5624.8 5625.0 9/ 3 / 1 9 9 8 9/ 3 / 1 9 9 9 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 0 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 1 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 2 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 3 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 4 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 6 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 7 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2E1-1S 2E1-1S (Measured) 2E1-1S Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 5620.2 5620.4 5620.6 5620.8 5621.0 9/ 3 / 1 9 9 8 9/ 3 / 1 9 9 9 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 0 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 1 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 2 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 3 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 4 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 5 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 6 9/ 3 / 2 0 0 7 9/ 2 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2E1-2S 2E1-2S (Measured) 2E1-2S Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5621.0 5621.2 5621.4 5621.6 5621.8 5622.0 5622.2 5622.4 5622.6 5622.8 5623.0 5623.2 5623.4 5623.6 5623.8 5624.0 5/ 4 / 1 9 9 9 5/ 3 / 2 0 0 0 5/ 3 / 2 0 0 1 5/ 3 / 2 0 0 2 5/ 4 / 2 0 0 3 5/ 3 / 2 0 0 4 5/ 3 / 2 0 0 5 5/ 3 / 2 0 0 6 5/ 4 / 2 0 0 7 5/ 3 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W7-C 2W7-C (Measured) 2W7-C Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5620.0 5620.2 5620.4 5620.6 5620.8 5621.0 5621.2 5621.4 5621.6 5621.8 5622.0 5622.2 5622.4 5622.6 5622.8 5623.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W7-N 2W7-N (Measured) 2W7-N Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 5620.2 5620.4 5620.6 5620.8 5621.0 5621.2 5621.4 5621.6 5621.8 5622.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W7-S 2W7-S (Measured) 2W7-S Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 5620.2 5620.4 5620.6 5620.8 5621.0 5621.2 5621.4 5621.6 5621.8 5622.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W6-N 2W6-N (Measured) 2W6-N Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5617.0 5617.2 5617.4 5617.6 5617.8 5618.0 5618.2 5618.4 5618.6 5618.8 5619.0 5619.2 5619.4 5619.6 5619.8 5620.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W6-C 2W6-C (Measured) 2W6-C Model - Secondary Consolidation Only 5615.0 5615.2 5615.4 5615.6 5615.8 5616.0 5616.2 5616.4 5616.6 5616.8 5617.0 5617.2 5617.4 5617.6 5617.8 5618.0 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 5 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 6 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 0 7 8/ 2 5 / 2 0 0 8 El e v a t i o n ( f t ) Date Phase 1 Settlement at 2W6-S 2W6-S (Measured) 2W6-S Model - Secondary Consolidation Only ATTACHMENT F SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 07/1: UPDATED LIQUEFACTION ANALYSES Client: Denison Mines Job No.: 1009740 Project: White Mesa Mill Reclamation Date: 8/9/2012 Detail: Liquefaction Analysis of Reclaimed Cells Computed By: SAM and TMS 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 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October. Note: Reference list at the bottom of this page. SITE-WIDE DATA 6 Earthquake magnitude, Mw Technical Memorandum: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis White Mesa Uranium Facility Blanding, Utah. (MWH, 2012) 1.77 Magnitude Scaling Factor, MSF Youd, et al. 2001. Equation 24. 0.15 Peak horizonal acceleration at ground surface, amax/g Technical Memorandum: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis White Mesa Uranium Facility Blanding, Utah. (MWH, 2012) 90 Dry unit weight of tailings, γd-tailing (pcf) 14.14 Dry unit weight of tailings, d-tailing (kN/m3)Calculated 95.40 Moist unit weight of tailings, γm-tailing (pcf)Calculated based on 6% water content 14.99 Moist unit weight of tailings, m-tailing (kN/m3)Calculated 120.3 Saturated unit weight of tailings, γsat-tailing (pcf)Calculated based on dry unit weight, specific gravity, and porosity presented in Denison, 2012. 18.90 Saturated unit weight of tailings, sat-tailing (kN/m3)Calculated 2 SPT blow count for tailings, Nm (blows/foot)(uncorrected)Conservatively assumed a blow count of 2 which is representative of very loose granular soils. Range of uncorrected (SPT) blow counts for medium dense fine granular soils with wet unit weights of 110 to 130 pcf is 7 to 15 (Bowles, 1988). 2.75 Specific gravity of tailings, Gs-tailing Average calculated from laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western Colorado Testing, 1999) 0.90 Void ratio of tailings, e Calculated 6.0% Moisture content of unsaturated tailings, w The long-term moisture content value for the tailings is assumed to be 6 percent, per NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64 (NRC, 1989), and is consistent with the radon modeling (Denison, 2012). 18.2% Percent saturation of unsaturated tailings, S (%)Calculated 30%Fines content of tailings, FCtailing (%)Average calculated from entirety of laboratory testing results (Western Colorado Testing, 1999. Chen and Associates, 1987. CSM, 1978. Denison, 2009.) 118.0 Maximum dry unit weight of cover soil γcover-max (pcf)The maximum dry unit weight of the cover soils were average values estimated from laboratory testing results (UWM, 2012). 18.54 Maximum dry unit weight of cover soil γcover-max (kN/m3)Calculated 100.7 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 80% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 15.82 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 80% relative compaction, γcover95 (kN/m3)Calculated 107.0 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 85% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 16.81 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 85% relative compaction, γcover95 (kN/m3)Calculated 119.6 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 95% relative compaction, γcover95 (pcf)Calculated 18.79 Moist unit weight of cover soil at 95% relative compaction, γcover95 (kN/m3)Calculated 6.7% Natural (long-term) moisture content of cover soil, w (%)The long-term water content of the cover soils were average values estimated from laboratory testing results (UWM, 2012). 1,248 Normal stress induced by cover loading of Cell 2, σv (psf) 59.77 Normal stress induced by cover loading of Cell 2, σv (kN/m2) 1,165 Normal stress induced by cover loading of Cell 3, σv (psf) 55.76 Normal stress induced by cover loading of Cell 3, σv (kN/m2) 1,117 Normal stress induced by cover loading of Cells 4a and 4b, σv (psf) 53.47 Normal stress induced by cover loading of Cells 4a and 4b, σv (kN/m2) Cell 2 Cover Thickness Cover thicknesses from Denison, 2012. 0.5 Rock mulch/topsoil (ft) 3.5 Random fill at 85% compaction 4.7 Random fill at 95% compaction (ft) 2.5 Grading layer, random fill at 80% compaction (ft) 11.2 Total cover thickness (ft) 3.41 Total cover thickness (m) CELL 2 Tailings: 5613.5 Tailings Surface elevation (ft) 5581 Lowest native ground elevation (ft) 5593.03 Water surface elevation (ft) 32.5 Tailings Thickness (ft)From Table F.1 in Appendix F to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (MWH, 2011). 9.91 Tailings Thickness (m)Calculated from Table F.1 in Appendix F to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (MWH, 2011). 12.03 Max Saturated Thickness (ft)From settlement spreadsheet (Denison, 2012) 3.67 Max Saturated Thickness (m)From settlement spreadsheet (Denison, 2012) Note: For tailings Cell 2, phreatic surface is assumed to be flat, at elevation 5593.03 ft amsl. Elevation (ft) Depth from top of cover (ft) Depth from top of cover (m)σvo (psf)σvo (kN/m2)σ'vo (psf)σ'vo (kN/m2) CN (N1)60 (N1)60CS rd CSR CRR7.5 FS 5593 31.7 9.66 3,205 153 3,203 153 0.81 2.81 4.71 1.15432 8.0 0.911 0.089 0.096 1.90 Top of water surface 5590 34.7 10.58 3,566 171 3,377 162 0.79 2.79 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.893 0.092 0.095 1.83 5587 37.7 11.49 3,927 188 3,550 170 0.76 2.76 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.870 0.094 0.095 1.79 5584 40.7 12.40 4,288 205 3,724 178 0.74 2.74 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.845 0.095 0.095 1.77 5581 43.7 13.32 4,648 223 3,898 187 0.72 2.72 4.71 1.15432 7.8 0.817 0.095 0.095 1.76 Native ground elevation Cell 3 Cover Thickness Cover thicknesses from Denison, 2012. 0.5 Rock mulch/topsoil (ft) 3.5 Random fill at 85% compaction 4.0 Random fill at 95% compaction (ft) 2.5 Grading layer, random fill at 80% compaction (ft) 10.5 Total cover thickness (ft) 3.20 Total cover thickness (m) CELL 3 Tailings: 36.97 Phreatic Surface depth from top of cover 49 Depth from top of cover to lowest point on native ground 38.5 Tailings Thickness (ft)From Table F.1 in Appendix F to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (MWH, 2011). 11.73 Tailings Thickness (m)Calculated from Table F.1 in Appendix F to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (MWH, 2011). 12.03 Max Saturated Thickness (ft)Assumed to be the same as for Cell 2 3.67 Max Saturated Thickness (m)Assumed to be the same as for Cell 2 Note: For tailings Cell 3, phreatic surface is assumed to be flat at an elevation 12 ft above the lowest point. Depth from top of Cover (ft) Depth from top of Cover (m)σvo (psf)σvo (kN/m2)σ'vo (psf)σ'vo (kN/m2) CN (N1)60 (N1)60CS rd CSR CRR7.5 FS 37.0 11.28 3,693 177 3,692 176.8 0.75 2.75 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.876 0.085 0.095 1.97 Top of water surface 40.0 12.19 4,054 194 3,865 185.1 0.73 2.73 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.851 0.087 0.095 1.93 43.0 13.11 4,415 211 4,039 193.4 0.71 2.71 4.71 1.15432 7.8 0.823 0.088 0.095 1.91 46.0 14.02 4,776 229 4,213 201.7 0.69 2.69 4.71 1.15432 7.8 0.794 0.088 0.094 1.90 49.0 14.93 5,137 246 4,386 210.0 0.67 2.67 4.71 1.15432 7.8 0.763 0.087 0.094 1.91 Native ground elevation Cells 4a and 4b Cover Thickness Cover thicknesses from Denison, 2012. 0.5 Rock mulch/topsoil (ft) 3.5 Random fill at 85% compaction 3.6 Random fill at 95% compaction (ft) 2.5 Grading layer, random fill at 80% compaction (ft) 10.1 Total cover thickness (ft) 3.08 Total cover thickness (m) CELL 4a/4b Tailings: 40.5 Tailings Thickness (ft)From Table F.1 in Appendix F to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (MWH, 2011). 12.34 Tailings Thickness (m)Calculated from Table F.1 in Appendix F to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (MWH, 2011). 0.33 Saturated Thickness (ft)Estimated from dewatering analyses for Cells 4a and 4b (Geosyntec, 2007a and 2007b). 0.1 Saturated Thickness (m)Estimated from dewatering analyses for Cells 4a and 4b (Geosyntec, 2007a and 2007b). Note: For tailings Cells 4a and 4b, phreatic surface is assumed to be parallel to the native ground 0.1 m above native ground. Depth from Top of Cover (ft) Depth from Top of Cover (m)σvo (psf)σvo (kN/m2)σ'vo (psf)σ'vo (kN/m2) CN (N1)60 (N1)60CS rd CSR CRR7.5 FS 12 3.66 1,306 63 1,286 61.6 1.22 3.22 4.71 1.15432 8.4 0.975 0.097 0.099 1.82 15 4.57 1,592 76 1,572 75.3 1.13 3.13 4.71 1.15432 8.3 0.969 0.096 0.099 1.82 18 5.49 1,879 90 1,858 89.0 1.06 3.06 4.71 1.15432 8.2 0.962 0.095 0.098 1.83 21 6.40 2,165 104 2,144 102.7 0.99 2.99 4.71 1.15432 8.2 0.954 0.094 0.097 1.83 24 7.31 2,451 117 2,431 116.4 0.94 2.94 4.71 1.15432 8.1 0.945 0.093 0.097 1.84 27 8.23 2,737 131 2,717 130.1 0.89 2.89 4.71 1.15432 8.0 0.934 0.092 0.096 1.86 30 9.14 3,023 145 3,003 143.8 0.84 2.84 4.71 1.15432 8.0 0.921 0.090 0.096 1.88 33 10.06 3,310 158 3,289 157.5 0.80 2.80 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.904 0.089 0.095 1.90 36 10.97 3,596 172 3,575 171.2 0.76 2.76 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.883 0.087 0.095 1.94 39 11.89 3,882 186 3,862 184.9 0.73 2.73 4.71 1.15432 7.9 0.860 0.084 0.095 1.99 42 12.80 4,168 200 4,148 198.6 0.70 2.70 4.71 1.15432 7.8 0.833 0.082 0.094 2.05 45 13.72 4,454 213 4,434 212.3 0.67 2.67 4.71 1.15432 7.8 0.804 0.079 0.094 2.12 48 14.63 4,741 227 4,720 226.0 0.64 2.64 4.71 1.15432 7.8 0.773 0.076 0.094 2.19 51 15.54 5,027 241 5,006 239.7 0.62 2.62 4.71 1.15432 7.7 0.743 0.073 0.094 2.28 References Bowles, J., 1988. Foundation Analysis and Design, Fourth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York. Chen and Associates, Inc., 1987. Physical Soil Data, White Mesa Project, Blanding Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. Colorado Schoo of Mines Research Institute (CSM), 1978. Grinding Reports - DSM Screen Undersize. 5 June, 1978. Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0, Attachment E – Evaluation of Potential Settlement due to Earthquake Induced Liquefaction and Probabilistic Seismic Risk Assessment. November. Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2007a. Analysis of Slimes Drain (Cell 4A). May 11. Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec). 2007b. Analysis of Slimes Drain (Cell 4B). August 30. MWH, 2011. White Mesa Mill Updated Tailings Cover Design Report. Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. September 2011. MWH, 2012. Technical Memorandum: Site-Specific Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis for the White Mesa Uranium Facility. Blanding, Utah. September, 2011. University of Wisconsin-Madison (UWM), Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory, 2012. Compaction and Hydraulic Properties of Soils from Banding, Utah. Geotechnics Report NO. 12-41 by C.H. Benson and X. Wang. July 24. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, Regulatory Guide 3.64. June. Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999. Report of Soil Sample Testing of Tailings Collected from Cell 2 and Cell 3, Prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. May 4. 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 Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, October. The dry density of the tailings was estimated as 90 pcf, based on laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987. Western Colorado Testing, 1999) and assuming the long- term density of the tailings is at 85 percent of the average laboratory measured maximum dry density. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison), 2012. Responses to Interrogatories – Round 1 for Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, March 12. Attachment H - Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 12/1: Revised Appendix C, Radon Emanation Modeling, to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0). August 15 ATTACHMENT G SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 07/1: REVISED APPENDIX D, VEGETATION AND BIOINTRUSION, TO THE UPDATED TAILINGS COVER DESIGN REPORT (APPENDIX D OF RECLAMATION PLAN, REVISION 5.0) VEGEETATION APP AND BIO PENDIX D OTINTRU Updated T D SION EV Tailings Cov VALUATIO er Design R ON Report Denison M D.1 IN This app evapotra site. A c cover an assist in the short ET cove characte and root cover an biointrus conducte D.2 P The follo White M compatib assumpt species a • • • • • • • • • • • • • These sp D.3 P Given a each sp permane ines Corp. NTRODUCT endix provid nspiration (E critical comp d will functio removing w t-term estab er are add ristics of spe t distribution d leaf area ion from bot ed in June 20 PROPOSED wing 13 spe esa Mill site bility, and l ion that inst are: Western w Bluebunc Slender w Streamba Pubescen Indian rice Sandberg Sheep fes Squirrelta Blue gram Galleta, v Common White sag pecies are de PROPOSED mixture of t ecies. See ent cover of TION des an evalu ET) cover p onent of an on over the l ater through lishment an dressed. ecies (i.e., lo n), characte index [LAI]) th plants and 012 and liter SPECIES F ecies (11 gra e. These s long-term s itutional con wheatgrass, ch wheatgras wheatgrass, ank wheatgra nt wheatgras egrass, varie g bluegrass, scue, variety ail, variety To ma, variety H variety Viva ( yarrow, no v ge, variety S escribed in m SEEDING R the species eding rates grasses an uation of veg roposed for ET cover is ong term to h the process d long-term These issu ongevity, su ristics of th , and soil re d animals is rature applic FOR ET COV asses and 2 species wer sustainability ntrols will ex variety Arrib ss, variety G variety San ass, variety ss, variety Lu ety Paloma variety Can y Covar (Fes oe Jam Cree Hachita (Bou (Hilaria jame variety (Ach Summit (Arte more detail l RATES listed abov were deve nd forbs in D-1 getation that reclamation s the plant co provide pro s of transpir sustainabili ues include stainability, e establishe equirements addressed cable to site VER RECLA forbs) are p re selected y. Species clude grazin ba (Pascopy Goldar (Pseu Luis (Elymu Sodar (Elym una (Thinop (Achnatheru bar (Poa se stuca ovina) ek (Elymus e uteloua graci esii) illea millefol emisia ludovi later in this a ve, Table D. eloped base a mixture th Updated T t would be u n of tailings ommunity th otection from ration. In thi ity of vegeta e: plant sp compatibility ed plant co for sustaine using inform conditions. AMATION proposed fo for their ad s were als ng by domes yrum smithii) udoroegneria us trachycau mus lanceola pyrum interm um hymenoid cunda) elymoides) ilis) lium) iciana). appendix. .1 presents ed on the hat would p Tailings Cov used as an in cells at the hat will be es m wind and w s appendix, ation propos pecies selec y, competitio mmunity (i.e ed plant gro mation from a r the ET cov daptability to so selected stic livestock ) a spicata) ulus) atus ssp. psa medium ssp. des) broadcast s objective o promote com er Design R MWH America Augus ntegral part White Mesa stablished o water erosion issues relat ed as part o ction, ecolo on, rooting d e., percent owth. In add an on-site su ver system a o site condit based on k. The prop ammophilus barbulatum) seeding rate of establishi mpatibility am Report as, Inc. st 2012 of an a Mill on the n and ted to of the ogical depth plant dition, urvey at the tions, n the posed s) ) es for ng a mong Denison M species a rate is b presente The num rate is th as the nu the same some rat Seeding seeds pe unit area amount, erroneou large see while Ind calculate of blue g be very e Table D Sc Grasses Pascopy Pseudor Elymus t Elymus l Elymus e Thinopyr Achnath Poa secu Festuca Boutelou Hilaria ja Forbs Achillea occident Artemisia Total †Seeding ‡Introduce outside of Seeding desired n ines Corp. and minimize based on po ed below. mber of seed he sum of th umber of se e species ca tes are for m rates are d er square foo a (e.g. poun the develop us rates that eded specie dian ricegra ed simply on rama seed easy to over .1. Species cientific Nam s yrum smithii roegneria spic trachycaulus lanceolatus elymoides rum intermed erum hymeno unda ovina ua gracilis amesii millefolium, v talis a ludoviciana rate is for bro ed refers to sp f North Ameri rate may b number of p e competitiv ounds of pu s placed in he individual eeds per squ an be found i monocultures developed o ot). Once th ds per acre pment of se t will tend to s. For exam ss has app the basis o has four tim plant blue g s and Seedi me We cata Blu Sle Str Sq dium Pu oides Ind Sa Sh Blu Ga variety Co Wh oadcast seed pecies that ha ca. Also refe e calculated plants per un ve exclusion ure live see a unit area species see uare foot or in the literatu s and other r n the basis his number is e). Since ea eding rates o over emph mple, blue g proximately f weight per es the numb grama and u ng Rates Pr Common N estern wheatg uebunch whea ender wheatg reambank wh uirreltail bescent whea dian ricegrass ndberg blueg eep fescue ue grama alleta ommon yarrow hite sage and presente ave been ‘intr erred to as ‘ex d from an e nit area. Fo D-2 or loss of sp d per acre of soil is ca eding rates. pounds per ure. The pri rates are for of number s determined ach species based pure hasize smal grama has a 175,000 see r unit area, w ber of seeds nder plant In roposed for Name grass atgrass rass eatgrass atgrass s grass w ed as pounds roduced’ from xotic’ species. xpected fiel r purposes o Updated T pecies over (lbs PLS/ac lled the see Seeding ra r acre. Man mary reason diverse mix of seeds pe d, then it ca s produces s ely on weigh l seeded sp approximatel eds per pou without recog s per pound ndian ricegra r ET Cover Varietal Name Arriba Goldar San Luis Sodar Toe Jam Luna Paloma Canbar Covar Hachita Viva No variety No variety s of pure live s m another geo . d emergenc of calculatio Tailings Cov time. The p cre), with fu eding rate. T ates are nor ny different s n for these d xtures. er unit area n be conver seed that w ht per unit a pecies and u y 700,000 s und. If see gnizing the f as Indian ri ass. at the Whit Native/ Introduce Native Native Native Native Native Introduced Native Native Introduced Native Native Native Native seed per acre ographic regio ce for each on, field eme er Design R MWH America Augus proposed see urther discu The total see rmally expre seeding rate differences is a (e.g. numb rted to weigh weighs a diff area will pro under-emph seeds per po eding rates fact that a p cegrass, it w e Mesa Mill ed Seedin Rate (lb PLS/acr 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0‡ 1.0 4.0 0.5 ‡ 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.5 23.0 e (lbs PLS/acr on, typically species an ergence for Report as, Inc. st 2012 eding ssion eding essed es for s that ber of ht per ferent oduce asize ound, were pound would l Site ng bs re)† re). d the small Denison M seeded g Field em Natural R per squa precipitat expected area to favorable facing as or when the drill r A CQAQ rates are purchase certificati assures agency r germinat origin, g weight), o guarante Once the date that greater th applied u also calle usually m of about will be di seeding c terms of obtained comparin applied i other ha distributio seeding D.4 E P D.4.1 E Importan the para Alderson adapted textural r ines Corp. grasses and mergence is Resource Co are foot as tion betwee d field emerg control eros e growing co spect, good the seed is b rate for favor QC Plan for e achieved ed as poun ion program the custom responsible tion for each ermination other crop a ee that the se e seed is obt t the seed w han 6 month using a broa ed an end-g mounted on 20 feet or m stributed us conditions. pounds pe . During t ng pounds o n two separ alf of seed w on across t rate if the sp ECOLOGICA PLANT COM Ecological C nt ecological agraphs that n and Sharp to the eleva ranges (loam d forbs is as assumed to onservation a minimum en 6 and 18 gence of 50% sion and su onditions, so moisture, an broadcast, s rable conditi application is as follow nds of pure ms may be a mer that the for seed ce h species of s percentage, and weed se eed being pu tained, seed was tested f hs old, the s dcasting me gate seeder the back of more. Prior sing the broa Seed will th r acre. Thi he seeding of seed app rate passes will be spre the site is h pecified rate AL CHARAC MMUNITY Characterist characteris t follow. S (1994), Wa ation (5,600 m to sandy ssumed to b o be around Service reco number of 8 inches. % should pro uppress ann oils that are nd adequate seeding rates ons. rates and p ws. The firs live seed. adopted by seed is co ertification s seed. When date of th eeds, and ine urchased me d labels wou for percent eed would b ethod. This r. These br a small trac to seeding, adcaster and en be collec is process w process, th plied to the s . One-half ead in a pe highly unifor is not being CTERISTICS tics of Plant stics for each pecies infor sser (1982) 0 feet), prec clay) that a D-3 be around 5 30% if ger ommends a seeds whe Twenty pur oduce an ad nual invasio not extreme e soil nutrien s are increa procedures f st step begin Each Sta seed growe orrectly iden sets minimu n certified, a he germinat ert material. eets minimu ld be checke purity and p be tested ag procedure w roadcasters ctor and gen a known ar d simulating cted and wei will be repe he seeding size of the of the seed erpendicular rm and also g achieved. S OF PROPO t Species o h species p rmation was , and Thorn ipitation (13 are well with Updated T 50% if germ rmination is seeding rat n drill seed re live seed dequate num on. This s e in texture, nts. When c sed up to a for confirmin ns with a s ate has a s ers. Certific tified and g m standard a container o ion test, pe The certific um standards ed to determ percent germ ain before b would use a operate wit nerally have rea will be c conditions t ghed to dete eated until th rate will b area seede will be spre direction. o provide th OSED SPEC of Tailings C roposed for s obtained f burg (1982) 3 inches per hin the env Tailings Cov ination is gr between 60 te of 20 to 30 ing in areas ds per squa mber of plan seeding rate gentle slop conditions a level that is ng that spe seed order. seed certify ation of a c genetically p s for mecha of seed must ercentage o cation is the s and the qu mine the perc mination. If being accept centrifugal t th an electri an effective covered with that would e ermine actua he specified e verified a ed. In addit ead in one d This will e he opportun CIES AND E Cover Syste r reclamation from Monse ). The propo r year on av ironmental c er Design R MWH America Augus reater than 0 and 80%. 0 pure live s s with an an are foot, wit ts on the se e is primaril pes, north or are less favo two to four t cified applic Seed wou ying agency container of pure. The anical purity t be labeled of pure seed consumer’s uality specifie cent PLS an f the test da ted. Seed w type broadca ic motor and e spreading a tarp and exist under a al seeding ra d seeding ra at least onc ion, seed w direction an ensure that nity to adjus ESTABLISH em n are provid en et al. (2 osed specie verage), and conditions o Report as, Inc. st 2012 80%. The seeds nnual th an eeded ly for r east orable times cation ld be y and seed State y and as to d (by s best ed. nd the ate is will be aster, d are width seed actual ate in ate is ce by will be d the seed st the HED ded in 2004), es are d soil of the Denison M White Me in the fol Western rhizomat annual p ranges u mining re regions b stands o regenera seedlings reproduc Bluebun is a nativ in texture found in tolerant a 14 inch Bluebunc to 10,000 Slender native, c lived spe other wh pioneer addition, common rehabilita drought t can grow ines Corp. esa Mill site. lowing parag n wheatgras ous, long-liv precipitation up to 9,000 elated distu because of of both war ates readily s and high s ce by seed e nch wheatgr ve, cool seas e, depth and sagebrush and regener mean annu ch wheatgra 0 feet. wheatgras ool season, ecies (5 to 10 heatgrasses species; its it is able ly seeded ate native c tolerant. It p w on sites wit . Table D.2 graphs. ss, variety A ved perennia zone and is feet. Wes rbances, for its ease of e rm and coo following bu seed produc ensures long rass, variet son perennia d parent ma communitie rates vegeta ual precipita ass performs ss, variety perennial b 0 years) but in this cha seedlings to establish in mixtures communities performs bes th precipitati presents a Arriba (Pasc al cool seas s adapted to stern wheatg r erosion co establishme ol season s urning. The ction. The c -term sustai ty Goldar (P al bunch gra aterial. It is es in the in tively follow ation range s well in mix San Luis ( bunch grass it reseeds a aracteristic. are vigorou h and comp with other . It is ada st at sites w ion levels as D-4 summary of copyrum sm son grass. o a wide ra grass has b ontrol and fo nt and abilit pecies. W e variety of combination nability of th Pseudoroeg ass. Bluebu one of the ntermountain ing burning. and is cons tures with o (Elymus tra s that occas and spreads Slender w s and capa pete with w r grasses a pted to a w with an annua s low as 13 i Updated T f the ecologi mithii)—Wes It grows we nge of soil been an imp or critical ar ty to grow s Western whe Arriba is kn of its ability his species. gneria spica nch wheatg most impor n west. Bl This speci sidered to other species achycaulus) sional produ well by natu wheatgrass able of esta weedy specie and forbs to wide variety al precipitati nches. Tailings Cov cal characte stern wheatg ell in a 10 t textural clas portant spec rea stabiliza uccessfully eatgrass is nown for rap y to spread ata)—Bluebu rass grows o rtant and pro uebunch w ies is well ad be highly d s and grows )—Slender ces rhizome ural seeding can serve ablishing on es. Slende o restore d of sites an ion of 15 inc er Design R MWH America Augus eristics discu grass is a na to 14 inch m sses at elev cies for rest ation in sem in pure or m fire tolerant pidly establis vegetatively unch wheatg on soils that oductive gra heatgrass is dapted to a drought resis s at elevation wheatgrass es. It is a s , exceeding as an impo harsh sites er wheatgra disturbances nd is moder ches or more Report as, Inc. st 2012 ussed ative, mean vation toring mi-arid mixed t and shing y and grass t vary asses s fire 12 to stant. ns up is a short- most ortant s. In ass is s and rately e, but D W B w S S w P w I S S S B G C W a b c d e f g h i j2 Denison Mines Cor Table D.2. Su Sp e c i e s Western wheatgr Bluebunch wheatgrass Slender wheatgra Streambank wheatgrass Pubescent wheatgrass Indian ricegrass Sandberg bluegra Sheep fescue Squirreltail Blue grama Galleta Common yarrow White sage aKey to Ratings—bSoil Texture CodcDepth representsdWyatt et al., 198eWeaver and ClefCoupland and JogFoxx and TiernehSpence, 1937. USDA, 2012. 2009; Monsen et rp. ummary of Eco Or i g i n ass Native Native ass Native Native Introduced Native ass Native Introduced Native Native Native Native Native —4 = Excellent, 3 des—S = Sand, C s minimum depth 0. ments, 1938. ohnson, 1965. y, 1987. al., 2004. ological Charac An n u a l o r P e r e n n i a l Perennial V Perennial S Perennial S Perennial V d Perennial V Perennial S Perennial S d Perennial S Perennial S Perennial V Perennial V Perennial V Perennial V = Good, 2 = Fair, C = Clay, L = Loa h; no information i cteristics of Pla Me t h o d o f S p r e a d Ea s e o f Et b l i h t a Vegetative 4 Seed 4 Seed 4 Vegetative 4 Vegetative 4 Seed 3 Seed 4 Seed 4 Seed 3 Vegetative 2 Vegetative 3 Vegetative 4 Vegetative 4 , 1 = Poor m in the literature on D-5 ant Species Pr 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 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 n average or max roposed for the An n u a l P r 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 10-14 ≤9 12-14 ≤10 13-18 ≤10 11-18 ≤10 12-18 ≤10 6-16 ≤10 12-18 ≤12 10-14 ≤11 8-15 ≤11 10-16 ≤10 6-18 ≤8 13-18 ≤11 12-18 ≥5 ximum depth cou Updated Tai e ET Cover at t El e v a t i o n Ra n g e (f e e t ) So i l T e x t u r e b ,000 S,C,L 0,000 S,C,L 0,000 S,C,L 0,000 S,C,L 0,000 S,C,L 0,000 S,L 2,000 S,C,L 1,000 S,C, L 1,000 S,C,L 0,000 S,L ,000 S,C,L 1,000 S,C,L ,000 S,C,L uld be found. lings Cover Des MWH Am A the White Mesa Ro 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 a 109d 4 122e 4 109d 2 165f 4 185d 4 84g 2 45h 2 56e 3 30c,i 2 119g 4 30j 4 105h 4 20c,i 3 sign Report mericas, Inc. August 2012 a Mill Site Dr o u g h t T o l e r a n c e a Fi r e T o l e r a n c e a 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 3 2 Denison M Streamb Streamba lanceolat rhizomat performs wide rang mine lan annual w Pubesce Pubesce highly dr is adapte persisten and has Indian ri cool seas the most tolerant s on soils the mean persisten Sandber season p damage. Intermou establish are not o Sheep f introduce of 10 to species t Turkey a control. tolerant. Squirrelt perennia undesira on all so tolerant o Blue gra warm sea is mostly but does ines Corp. bank wheat ank wheatg tus ssp. lanc ous and ad s well in me ge of soil tex nd reclamati weeds. Its hi ent wheatg ent wheatgra ought tolera ed to a wide nt species, s been found icegrass, va son, perenn t common g species used ranging from n annual pre nt once it bec rg bluegras perennial bu Sandberg untain area. hed in areas overly compe fescue, var ed perennial 14 inches. that greens and is comm This variety tail, variety l that is se ble annual g oil textures in of fire becau ama, variet ason bunchg y concentrate s best on w tgrass, var grass is co ceolatus) tax apted to the an annual p xtures, from on and is b ghly rhizom grass, varie ass is a lon ant and grow range of so should be se to be effecti ariety Palom ial bunchgra grasses on d in mine la m sandy to h ecipitation is comes estab ss, variety C unchgrass th bluegrass i It grows at with a mea etitive, and th riety Cova l that grows It is long-liv up early in monly used i y was selec y Toe Jam elected for it grasses. It n mean ann se of its sma y Hachita ( grass. Blue ed near the well-drained riety Soda onsidered to xa. Variety e western in precipitation sandy to cla best known atous nature ety Luna ng-lived sod ws where the il textures, f eeded at low ve in reduci ma (Achnat ass with a h semi-arid la nd reclamat heavy clays. 6 to 16 inch blished. Canbar (Po hat is adapt is one of the t elevations n annual pre herefore hig r (Festuca well on infe ed and high the spring. n mine land cted becaus m Creek (E ts ability to grows along nual precipita all size. (Bouteloua e grama prod soil surface soils and o D-6 r (Elymus o be part o Sodar is a n ntermountain ranges betw ayey. Strea for its abilit e ensures lo (Thinopyru forming pe e mean annu rom sand to w densities t ng the estab therum hym ighly fibrous ands in the tion. It gene It grows fr hes. Indian a secunda) ed to all so e more com from 1,000 ecipitation o hly compatib ovina)—S ertile soils in hly drought t The propos d reclamation se plants are Elymus ely establish q g an elevatio ations zones gracilis)— duces an eff e. Blue gram once establi Updated T lanceolatu of the thick native, peren n area. It is ween 11 an ambank whe ty to contro ong-term sus um interme erennial intr ual precipita o clay. Pube to avoid com blishment of menoides)— s root system west and erally occurs rom 2,000 to ricegrass is )—Sandberg oil textures a mmon early-s to 12,000 f of 12 inches ble with othe Sheep fescu n areas with tolerant. Sh sed variety, n for long-te e persistent ymoides)—S quickly and on range fro s of 8 to 15 —Blue grama ficient, widel ma is adapt ished, is hig Tailings Cov us ssp. ps kspike whe nnial sod gr s highly drou nd 18 inches eatgrass is co ol erosion an stainability of edium ssp. roduced from ation is 12 in escent whea mpetition wit woody plan —Indian riceg m. Indian ric is one of th s on sandy s o 10,000 fee s slow to est g bluegrass and is highly season bun feet and can or more. E er native spe ue is a sh a mean ann heep fescue Covar, was erm stabiliza t, winter har Squirreltail to effective om 2,000 to 5 inches. Sq a is a low-g ly spreading ted to a vari ghly drough er Design R MWH America Augus sammophilu atgrass (Ely rass that is h ught toleran s. It grows ommonly us nd compete f this specie barbulatu m Eurasia. nches or mo atgrass is a h th native sp nts. grass is a na cegrass is o he most dro soils, but is f et in areas w tablish, but h is a native, y resistant t chgrasses i n be succes stablished p ecies. ort, mat-for nual precipit is a cool se s introduced ation and ero rdy, and dro is a short- ely compete 11,000 fee quirreltail is rowing pere g root system iety of soil ty ht tolerant. Report as, Inc. st 2012 us)— lymus highly t and on a sed in e with es. um)— It is re. It highly ecies ative, one of ought found where highly , cool o fire n the ssfully plants rming tation eason from osion ought -lived e with t and fairly ennial m that ypes, This Denison M species i perennia Galleta, season g of annua soil fertili Common species t used in m on a vari inches. Achillea form. White s pioneer compatib on a wide with a me D.4.2 L All of the wheatgra perennia vegetativ establish these spe cover for cannot b species w documen White M Thornbur The pere individua or vegeta the tailin adapted such as d The use The esta sustained may exis specific e diversity organism ines Corp. is commonly ls. variety Viv grass with a al precipitatio ty and are d n yarrow (A that is rhizom mine land re ety of soil te If seed is n millefolium age, variet rhizomatous ble with pere e range of s ean annual p Longevity an e species pro ass (Elymus l bunchgras vely with rhi h quickly and ecies are inc r erosion pr be relied up will facilitate nted to be h Mesa Mill s rg, 1982). ennial grass al plants that ative plant p ngs cells wil nature of th drought, fire of a mixture ablishment d plant grow st over a se environment and enhan ms, and adve y found with va (Hilaria dense, fibro on with soils drought and f Achillea mil matous and eclamation, extures and not available would be u y Summit s forb spec ennial grasse soil textures. precipitation nd Sustaina oposed for r trachycaulu ss that is sho izomes. Sq d is highly e cluded in the rotection and on to provid e the establi highly adapt ite (Monsen ses and forb t are long liv parts like rhi ll ensure a hese specie , and herbiv e of species of a diverse wth. The us eeded site a tal condition nces natural erse or chan cool-seaso jamesii)—G ous root sys ranging from fire tolerant. llefolium, v found growi establishes found in a m e for Achille sed, which (Artemisia ies that est es. It does b It is adapte n above 12 in ability eclamation o us) and squir ort-lived (5 to quirreltail is ffective in co e proposed s d to effectiv de consisten ishment of t ted to the e n et al., 20 bs in the pro ved (30 years izomes and permanent es to site co vory, and the for the ET c e communit se of a varie are properly ns. In additi recovery p nges in clim D-7 n species an Galleta is a tem. Gallet m coarse to var. occiden ng from vall easily from mean annua ea millefolium has the sam ludovician tablishes qu best on well ed to sites a nches. of the tailing rreltail (Elym o 10 years) also a sho ompeting wi seed mixture vely compete nt and susta the remainin elevation, cl 004; Alders oposed see s or more) a tillers. The or sustaina onditions, th eir ability to e cover also co ty has man ety of speci y matched w ion, a mixtu processes fo matic conditio Updated T nd is highly a strongly rh ta grows on fine. Plants ntalis)--Yarro ey bottoms seed and is al precipitatio m var. occid me growth c na)--White s uickly on di -drained soi above 5,000 gs cells are l mus elymoide but has the ort-lived pere ith undesira e because o e with annu ainable plan ng long-lived imate, and son and Sh ed mixture in and are able e use of thes able plant c eir toleranc effectively re ontributes to ny advantag ies ensures with species re of specie ollowing imp ons. Finally Tailings Cov compatible hizomatous sits receivin s have a low ow is a com to timberline s highly per on range be dentalis, the characteristi sage is con isturbed site ils, but can b feet in eleva long-lived, e es). Slende ability to re ennial but h ble annual g of their ability ual and bien nt cover. T d perennials soil conditio harp, 1994; nclude spec e to reproduc se species cover becau e to environ eproduce ove o longevity a ges over a that divers s that are a es reverses pacts from y, mixtures p er Design R MWH America Augus with other n perennial w ng 6 to 18 in w requireme mmon native e. It is comm rsistent. It g tween 13 an en the introd ics as the n nsidered to es and is h be found gro ation and to except for sle r wheatgras seed and sp has the abil grasses. Bo y to provide nnial species The use of t s that have ons found a Wasser, 1 cies that dev ce either by in reclamati use of the h nmental stre er time. and sustaina monocultur e microsites adapted to t the loss of insects, dis provide impr Report as, Inc. st 2012 native warm nches nt for e forb monly grows nd 18 duced native be a highly owing sites ender s is a pread ity to oth of quick s that these been at the 1982; velop seed on of highly esses ability. re for s that those plant sease roved Denison M ground c resource annual o where th D.4.3 C Reclama First with improvem following U.S. De resulted grassland of acres rules and thousand proceedi performa southeas a knowle must be will fail. with eac aggressiv dominate many stu 1982; Re to increa broadcas causes s seeds ar likely to b D.4.4 C There ar tailings c attribute. species i of specie species e invasives harm) is subseque establish biointrus seed mix will effec et al. (20 that one because ines Corp. cover and s es such as w or biennial p ey are not w Compatibilit ation researc h the resee ments of lar more than epartment o in the conv ds through a of mined lan d regulations ds of reclama ngs, and ance of indiv stern Utah (e edge base a compatible The species h other and ve [e.g., pu e the site (M udies have s edente et al. ase compati st seeded as species in a re not placed be negatively Competition re two ways cells, the use However, is undesirab es that can establishme s (i.e., non- unaccepta ent reductio hment of de ion through xture will pro ctively compe 003) present of the prima of competit surface stab water, nutrie plants cons wanted. y ch and its ap eding of mil ge tracts of a half a cen of Agricultur version of m an extensive nds reclaime s governing ation publica government vidual specie e.g., Plumm about specie as young, d s proposed d seeding ra ubescent w Monsen et a shown excel , 1984; Syd bility and to s opposed to mixture to b d in as close y impacted f s to view co e of seeded competition ble. Therefo coexist and nt and exclu -native spec ble because on in spec eep rooted the cover a oduce a gras ete with und t a literature ary reasons tion from he ility, along w ents, sunligh idered to b pplication ha lions of acr f arid and se ntury of rang re Conserva more than 40 e seeding pr ed across th mine land r ations in the t publication es and mixtu er et al., 196 es compatib developing p for the ET c ates will be wheatgrass al., 2004). T lent interspe nor and Red o reduce co o drill seede be placed in e contact wi from compet ompetition. species to among see ore, as state d also fully uding seede cies whose e of the po cies diversit woody plan and into the ss-forb comm desirable spe e review on that shrub e erbaceous sp D-8 with reducin ht and spac be undesirab ave been on res following emi-arid ran eland explo ation Reser 0 million acr rogram. Fin he U.S. with reclamation. form of boo ns. Many ures of spec 68; Monsen ility. Specie plants or cer cover at the used to pre (Thinopyrum These speci ecies compa dente, 2000 ompetition a ed. Accordin potentially c ith each othe tition. In the cont compete wit eded specie ed earlier, th utilize plant ed species. introduction otential loss ty, plant co nts is unac tailings ma munity of hig ecies, includ shrub estab establishmen pecies. This Updated T ng weed inv ce. Weeds ble or troub ngoing in the g the dust ngelands bet itation throu rve Program res of marg nally, there h the implem Over this t oks, scientific y publicatio cies under se et al., 2004 es that are rtain individu e White Mes event overse m intermedi ies are com atibility (e.g., ; Newman a among seed ng to Monse competitive s er as with d text of estab th weeds or s with the p he proposed resources The establi n causes ec of seeded over, and o cceptable be aterial. Onc ghly adapted ding shrubs blishment on nt is difficult s finding is Tailings Cov vasion by fu in this con blesome, es e U.S. since bowl of the tween the 1 ugh overgraz m was imp inal farm la have been te mentation of f time period, c journal arti ns have r emi-arid con 4). All of this seeded toge uals will suc a Mill site a eeding spec ium)] and c mmonly seed , DePuit et a and Redente ded species en et al. (20 situations, w drilling and th blishing an r woody plan potential loss seed mixtu to minimize shment of w conomic an perennial overall sust ecause of ce establishe d and produc native to the n mined lan in mined lan also suppor er Design R MWH America Augus ully utilizing text are typ specially gro the early 19 e 1930s. T 960s and 1 zing. In 198 plemented w nd to perma ens of thous federal and there have icles, sympo reported on nditions simi s work has l ether in mix cceed and o are all compa cies that ma could poten ded together al., 1978; De e, 2001). Fi , sites wou 004), drill see while broadca herefore are ET cover o nts is a desi s of any of t ures is comp e weed or w weeds, espe nd environm species and tainability. the potentia ed, the prop ctive species e area. Pas ds and conc nd reclamat rted by DeP Report as, Inc. st 2012 plant pically owing 900s. Then, 1980s 85 the which anent sands state been osium n the ilar to led to xtures others atible ay be ntially r and ePuit, nally, ld be eding asted e less n the irable these prised woody ecially mental d the The al for posed s that schke clude ion is Puit et Denison M al. (1980 adapted woody sp compacte discussio plant com D.4.5 P Monitorin showed t 5.5% dur al., 2008 eight spe proposed performin species species t were not similarity estimate percent p vegetativ Monticell compare temperat precipitat 7,000 fee In June 2 composit and Rev vicinity o Juniper w woodland (Juniperu the comm these tw different removal lack of an The Big intersper pallidum mostly g jamesii), cheatgra coccinea ines Corp. 0), DePuit (1 and compe pecies, such ed radon a on of big sag mmunity suc Plant Cover ng of an alte that the plan ring the first 8). A total o ecies contrib d for the W ng species, used at Mo that can be t considered y in environ of 40% was plant cover ve cover at lo because t d to 15 in tures are 64 tion and low et compared 2012 the are tion and cov egetation P f the White woodland. T d as a Piny us osteospe munity may o principal p stages of su (chaining an ny understor Sagebrush rsed shrubs var. pallidu rasses with squirreltail ss (Bromus a), lesser rus 988), Munsh titive nature h as big sage attenuation gebrush inva ccession. ernative cov nt cover perf t growing se of 18 specie buted 70% o White Mesa four of the onticello tha highly comp d acceptable nmental con s determine of 30% was White Mesa the average nches at M 4/37oF for W wer tempera d to 5,600 fee ea surround ver in respon lan of DRC Mesa Mill si The Dames yon-Juniper erma) and th be more a plant comm uccessional nd plowing) ry species in h shrubland of broom s um), and ru an infreque (Elymus e s tectorum) shy milkvetch hower (1994 e of the spec ebrush will b layer from asion and ro ver at the M formed well eason to nea s were seed of the total p Mill site w ese species at are not p petitive (i.e. s e for the Wh nditions betw d to be a re s assigned a is expecte e annual pre Monticello a White Mesa atures at Mo et at White M ing the Whit nse to Interro (2012). Th te. These p and Moore community he presence appropriately unity types, developme and seedin n some area is domina snakeweed ubber rabbit ent occurren lymoides), . Forb sp h (Astragalu D-9 4), and Mons cies that wil be slow and their roots ooting depth onticello, Ut over a seve arly 46% in ded at the M plant cover. were seeded are in the proposed for smooth brom hite Mesa M ween Monti easonable es as a reduce ed to be slig cipitation at and the av and 59/33 onticello are Mesa. te Mesa Mil ogatory 11/1 here are two plant commu Environmen type, but th e of pinyon p y classified there are a nt and reflec g and inten s. ated by big (Gutierrezia tbrush (Eric nce of forbs Indian riceg pecies inclu us convallariu Updated T sen et al. (2 l be seeded intrusion int is not ant h is presente tah, Uranium en year perio the seventh Monticello S Approxima d at Montic White Mesa r White Me me, crested ill site. Bas icello and W stimate for a ed performa ghtly less th White Mesa verage annoF for Mont e due to its l site was s : Vegetation o principal p unities are B ntal Report he primary t pine (Pinus as a Junipe a number of ct past distu se grazing a sagebrush a sarothroae cameria nau s. The gra grass (Achn ude scarlet us), and Rus Tailings Cov 2004). Beca d, the invasi to the cover ticipated to ed later unde m Mill Tailin od. Plant co h growing se Site and of th ately one ha ello and of a mixture. sa include wheatgrass sed on these White Mesa a long-term ance scenar han what wo a is approxim nual maximu ticello. The s slightly hig urveyed for n and Biointr plant commu Big Sagebrus (1978) class tree species edulis) is s er woodland f disturbed a urbances su as evidence h (Artemisia e) pale dese useosa). Th sses include natherum hy globemallo ssian thistle er Design R MWH America Augus ause of the h on of indige r below the h occur. Fu er the sectio ngs Disposa over ranged eason (Wau hese 18 spe alf of the sp f the eight High perfor three introd , and alfalfa e results an a, a plant c average, wh rio. The pe ould be fou mately 13 in um/minimum e slightly gr gher elevatio plant comm rusion Evalu unity types i sh shrubland sified the Ju s is Utah ju so infrequen d. In additio areas that a ch as sageb ed by a com tridentata) ert-thorn (Ly he understo e galleta (H ymenoides), ow (Sphaer (Salsola kal Report as, Inc. st 2012 highly enous highly urther on on l Site from gh et ecies, ecies best- rming duced ) and d the cover hile a ercent nd at nches m air reater on of munity uation n the d and uniper uniper t that on to are in brush mplete with ycium ory is Hilaria and ralcea li). Denison M The Juni site. It is sandy lo Sagebrus Sagebrus probabilit system. both plan D.4.6 2 The big s west of t transects D.1). Alo pin at 1 m that inter north, so vegetatio Results f Mill site s areas no 23.1% co average somewha (1978). commun grasses. 1977 wa addition, to a long sampled maintaine ines Corp. per woodlan s highly unlik am soil that sh shrubland sh commun ty that this c A reconnai nt and anima 012 Plant S sagebrush c he restricted s and estima ong each 10 meter interv rsected the outh and we on survey co from the 201 showed a m orth, south an over for shr percent litte at greater th In the Env ity was 33.3 Litter was s 23.6 cm c monthly pre g-term avera are curren ed on the ta nd occurs on kely that this t occurs on d. The vege nity and did community t issance leve al species th Survey community ty d area of the ating cover b 00 m long tra als and reco point. A to est of the m onducted in t 12 sampling mean live pla nd west of th rubs, 13.7% er was 13.1% han the cove vironmental 3%. This c estimated a compared to ecipitation du age of 12.5 tly grazed, ilings cell co n shallow so community the Mill site etation samp d not includ type would el survey wa hat occupy th ype within th e mill and ta by species u ansect, live p ording the p otal of 10 tra mill and taili the areas su g of the Big ant cover of he mill site ( cover for g % and bareg er values re Report, the cover include at 16.9% an a long-term uring the pe cm for the it is highly over system D-10 oils along the type would e, which is t pling that wa de the Junip ever establi as conducte hese areas. he White Me ilings facilitie using a poin plant cover b lant species ansects wer ngs cells. urrounding th Sagebrush 37.8% after Table D.3). grasses, and ground avera eported in D e average l ed an avera nd baregrou m average of eriod May-Se same perio likely that for condition Updated T e canyon rim expand its r the primary as conducted per woodlan ish on the M ed in the Ju esa Control A es was surv t intercept s by species w s or ground c re sampled Table D.3 he mill and ta community r averaging This plant c d 1.0% cove aged 49.1% ames and M live plant c age of 19.4% und was 49. f 29.7 cm (D eptember 19 od. Conside a cover of ns that exclu Tailings Cov m to the eas range into th soil type su d in 2012 fo nd because Mill site or ta niper comm Area to the veyed using sampling me was determin cover (litter in each of presents a ailings cells. surrounding live plant co cover includ er for forbs. . These cov Moore Envir cover in the % for shrub 9%. Annua Dames and 978 totaled 3 ering the fac 40% can b ude grazing er Design R MWH America Augus st and west o he deep, very upporting the cused on th e of the un ailings cell c munity to obs north, south randomly p ethod (see F ned by lower and baregro the areas t summary o . g the White M over estimat ed an avera In addition ver estimate ronmental R e Big Sageb bs and 13.8% al precipitati Moore 1978 3.8 cm comp ct that the a be achieved by livestock Report as, Inc. st 2012 of the y fine e Big e Big nlikely cover serve h, and laced Figure ring a ound) o the of the Mesa ted in age of n, the es are Report brush % for on in 8). In pared areas d and . Denison M Tab Site and North of M o B o B o R o P o G o S o In o C o S o Le o R Total Live Total Litte Total Bare South of M o B o B o G o S o In o C o S o R Total Live Total Litte Total Bare West of M o B o B o P o G o S o In o C o S o R Total Live Total Litte Total Bare The form issue for rock frag matrix of ines Corp. ble D.3. Ave Plant Specie Mill ig sagebrush room snakew Rubber rabbitb alm desert-th Galleta (Hilaria quirreltail (Ely ndian ricegras Cheatgrass (B carlet globem esser rushy m Russian thistle e Cover er Cover eground Mill ig sagebrush room snakew Galleta (Hilaria quirreltail (Ely ndian ricegras Cheatgrass (B carlet globem Russian thistle e Cover er Cover eground Mill ig sagebrush room snakew ale desert-tho Galleta (Hilaria quirreltail (Ely ndian ricegras Cheatgrass (B carlet globem Russian thistle e Cover er Cover eground mation of des discussion. ments, usua f finer mater erage Plant Surr es (Artemisia tr weed (Gutierre brush (Ericam horn (Lycium p a jaamesii) ymus elymoid ss (Achnather Bromus tectoru mallow (Sphae milkvetch (Ast e (Salsola kali (Artemisia tr weed (Gutierre a jaamesii) ymus elymoid ss (Achnather Bromus tectoru mallow (Sphae e (Salsola kali (Artemisia tr weed (Gutierre orn (Lycium p a jaamesii) ymus elymoid ss (Achnather Bromus tectoru mallow (Sphae e (Salsola kali sert paveme Desert pav ally one or tw rial (Cooke a t and Groun rounding th ridentata) ezia sarothroa meria nauseos pallidum var. des) rum hymenoid um) eralcea coccin tragalus conv i) ridentata) ezia sarothroa des) rum hymenoid um) eralcea coccin i) ridentata) ezia sarothroa pallidum var. p des) rum hymenoid um) eralcea coccin i) ent and pote vements are wo stones th and Warren D-11 nd Cover fro he White Me ae) sa). pallidum) des) nea) vallarius) ae) des) nea) ae) pallidum) des) nea) ential impac e armored su hick (approxi , 1973). Th Updated T om June 20 esa Mill Site ct on plant c urfaces com mately 2 to hese surface Tailings Cov 012 Samplin e % Cov 19.1 3.9 0.2 0.1 3.6 0.1 0.1 9.5 0.1 0.1 0.6 37.4 9.7 53.1 18.3 3.0 8.5 0.3 0.1 6.7 0.1 1.4 38.4 13.4 48.2 20.5 4.4 0.1 6.6 0.1 0.1 5.3 0.1 0.8 37.9 16.1 46.0 cover has be posed of an 3 centimete es form on a er Design R MWH America Augus ng in Areas ver een raised a ngular or rou rs), set on o arid soils thr Report as, Inc. st 2012 as an unded or in a rough Denison M deflation vegetatio and do n 1991), as of desert (which w amended pavemen D.4.7 L Monthly Mesa Mi including presents semi-arid the ET co This com from ear during th and use Jan F 0 D.5 B D.5.1 P The pote system, a plant spe rooting d that exte proposed literature The spec depth of depth of biointrus a depth o Proctor d with root attenuati ines Corp. of fine ma on (Cooke a not occur wh s would be t t pavement was confirme d with grav nt formation Leaf Area Ind leaf area in ll site. Thre g: Groenev a compilati d herbaceou over include mbination of rly spring to he cooler tim more water Table D Feb Mar 0 0.3 BIOINTRUSI Plant Intrusi ential for lon assuming no ecies that a depths that a end to a dep d for estab e. cies with the 185 cm. It f 122 cm, ion layer. R of 122 cm w density). In ting depth, f on layer of t aterial by w nd Warren, here either w he case for formation e ed during th vel, there is or an assoc dex ndex (LAI) v e primary pu veld (1997), on of LAI va us plant com e both cool- a species wil late fall. C mes of the gr during the w .4. Leaf Are Apr M 0.7 0 ON on g-term plan o long-term are proposed are far less pth of a min blishment al e deepest ro t is highly u which is th Root growth i will be restric addition, bo further decre he cover sys ind or wate 1973). Des wind or wate the White M ither on the he 2012 pla s no suppo ciated decrea alues were ublications w Scurlock e alues based mmunities. I and warm-se l maximize Cool-season rowing seaso warmest peri ea Index for Mo May June 0.6 0.6 t intrusion th maintenanc d for establi than the de imum of 10 ong with th oting system nlikely that he combined into the high cted because oth root den easing the p stem. D-12 er erosion d sert pavemen er erosion a Mesa cover s White Mes ant survey). orting eviden ase in plant estimated f were used to et al. (2001) on North A t is importan eason specie the length o species are on, while wa iod of the ye r the ET Cov onth July Au 1.8 2. hat could im ce following ishment on pth of the b .1 feet (308 heir maximu m is pubesce this species d depth of hly compacte e of the high nsity and the potential for Updated T due to a la nts are not c are controlled system. In a a Mill site o Even with nce to indi cover over t for the propo o estimate m ), and Fang American dat nt to note th es. of the growi e more prod arm-season ear. ver at White ug Sept .4 2.6 mpact the pe decommissi the cover s biointrusion a 8 cm). Tabl um rooting ent wheatgra s or any oth the erosio ed radon att h density of e size of roo r root growt Tailings Cov ck of prote common in s d by plant c addition, ther or areas sur h the use o cate a pote the long term osed ET co monthly LAI g et al. (20 ta sets that hat the prop ng season ductive and species are e Mesa Mill Oct No 0.8 0.1 erformance o ioning is ext system are and radon a e D.5 lists t depths ob ass, with a m her species on protection tenuation lay this materia ots decreas h into the c er Design R MWH America Augus ction by su semi-arid reg cover (Hend re is no evid rounding the of a topsoil ential for d m. over at the W for the ET c 008). Table were focuse posed specie and transpir use more w more produ Site ov Dec 1 0 of the final c tremely low. characterize attenuation la the plant sp btained from maximum ro will root bel n layer and yer that beg al (95% Stan se at a rapid compacted r Report as, Inc. st 2012 urface gions ricks, dence e site layer desert White cover, e D.4 ed on es for ration water uctive cover The ed by ayers ecies m the ooting low a d the ins at ndard d rate radon Denison M Table D Scientif Pascopy Pseudor Elymus t Elymus l Elymus e Thinopyr Achnath Poa secu Festuca Boutelou Hilaria ja Achillea Artemisia aWyatt et 1987; eSp Table D- establish root mas these two of the all big sage time. Ba big sage before th no longe plant com because Tab Species Western w Blue gram Species Big sageb aWeaver 1 In additio documen used to cover sys and Laue an estima ines Corp. .5. Rooting ic Name yrum smithii roegneria spic trachycaulus lanceolatus elymoides rum intermed erum hymeno unda ovina ua gracilis amesii millefolium a ludoviciana al., 1980; bW pence, 1937; f -6 illustrates hment on the ss in the 90 t o species is species pro brush, which ased on the brush will be he effects of er adapted. mmunity on it is not exp ble D.6. Pe Es wheatgrassa maa 0-2 cm brushb 35 1954; bMcLen on to the inf ntation of ro estimate roo stem, includ enroth (1994 ate of effect g Depths for cata dium oides Weaver and ClfUSDA, 2012 the reductio e cover syst to 120 cm d s typical of g oposed for e h is the mos climate chan e sustainabl f climate cha Regardless the tailings pected to roo rcent of Ro stablishmen 0-30 cm 65 94 20 m 20-40 cm 5 19 ndon 2010. formation pr ooting depth ot biomass ding: Hopkin 4), Jackson e ive root den r Species P ements, 1938 ; gMonsen et on in root m tem. Both w depth and no grasses foun establishmen st likely shru nge scenario le on site, b ange alter th s of the leng cover syste ot below 180 ot Mass by nt of the Co m 30-60 c 14 4 40-60 cm 60 c 17 esented on hs and root by depth fo ns (1953), B et al. (1996) sities by dep D-13 roposed fo Common Na Western whe Bluebunch w Slender whe Streambank Squirreltail Pubescent w Indian ricegr Sandberg bl Sheep fescu Blue grama Galleta Common ya White sage 8; cCoupland al. 2004. mass with de western whe o root mass nd in semi-a nt. Table D b species to os presente ut it is likely he environm gth of time th em, this spe cm. Depth for T over System cm 60-90 12 1 0-80 cm 80-10 cm 10 7 root archite biomass by or the plant artos and S ), and Gill et pth for the pr Updated T r Establish ame eatgrass wheatgrass eatgrass wheatgrass wheatgrass rass uegrass ue rrow and Johnson epth for two eatgrass and below 120 rid environm .6 also inclu o colonize th d later in thi y to establish ment to a con hat big sage ecies does n Two of the P m and Big S 0 cm 90-1 2 0 100-120 cm 5 ecture above y depth. Si community ims (1974), t al. (1999). roposed cov Tailings Cov ment on the Roo n, 1965;dFoxx of the spec d blue gram cm. The ro ments and a udes the roo he tailings co is appendix, h through na ndition that ebrush rema not pose a b Proposed S agebrush 20 cm 12 9 1 120-140 cm 4 e, Table D.7 ix primary p that would Sims and S The followin ver system. er Design R MWH America Augus e Cover Sys oting Depth( 109a 122b 109a 165c 30d 185a 84e 45f 56b 119e 30g 105f 20d and Tierney, cies propose a have very ot architectu re represent ot architectu over system it is unlikely atural succe big sagebru ains a part o biointrusion Species for 0-150 cm 0 0 140-160 cm 1 2 7 provides fu publications establish o Singh (1978) ng table pres Report as, Inc. st 2012 stem (cm) , ed for y little ure of tative re for m over y that ssion ush is of the issue 160-180 cm 1 urther were n the ), Lee sents Denison M Table D. Depth 0- 15- 30- 45- 60- 75- 90-1 †Maximum D.5.2 A The Dam surround possible burrowin (Microdip latrans), longtail w burrowin (Peromys (Thomom species i D.5.3 2 In June 2 in respon and Juni animals Transect spacing upon phy species t during th northern animal p characte During th were obs northern indication There we Report (D Table D. may occ species t ines Corp. 7. Root Bio h (cm) -15 -30 -45 -60 -75 -90 07 m rooting dep Animal Intru mes and M ding the Wh presence of g owl (Bu podops sp.), red fox (Vu weasel (Mus g animals scus truei) a mys talpoide s made in th 012 Burrow 2012 the are nse to Interr per commun or future c ts were arra between tra ysiographic that would p he performan pocket gop presence in ristics. he animal su served to th pocket gop n that a pop ere no evide Dames and 8 presents a ur on the W that have th omass for S Root Biom Anticipate 0 0 0 0 0 th under the r sion Moore Envir ite Mesa M f a number o ubo virginia vole (Micro ulpes vulpes stela frenata reported to and deer m es) was not he 1978 repo wing Animal ea surroundi rogatory 11/1 nities surrou colonization nged in a s ansects and features on potentially re nce period. pher. Obse the form of urvey one ba he north of t her in the sa pulation of n ence of poc Moore, 1978 an updated White Mesa M he potential Species Exp ass (grams c ed Performan 0.11 0.17 0.035 0.023 0.021 0.019 0.011 reduced perfo ronmental R Mill site. Th of burrowing nus), pocke otus sp.), de s), striped s a), and Gun o occur in ouse (Perom t observed ort. l Survey ng the White 1. A total of nding the m based on ystematic m transect len the landsca epresent the These spec rvations we f tracks, sca adger sightin the mill com agebrush co northern poc cket gophers 8) and no ev assessment Mill site. Ba for the deep D-14 pected to O cm-3) nce Ro ormance scen Report (197 e Environm g species in t et mouse esert cottonta skunk (Meph nison prairie the Junipe myscus man in either co e Mesa Mill 100 km of t ill site to det existing ha manner (at e ngths runnin ape. The pr e deepest p cies included re made alo at or active ng was made mplex. There ommunities cket gopher s during surv vidence of po t of maximum ased on a re pest burrows Updated T ccur on the oot Biomass Reduced Pe 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.015 0.014 0.0 0.0 nario would b 78) included ental Repor the Big Sag (Perognath ail (Sylvilagu hitis mephiti e dog (Cyno er communi niculatus). ommunity ty site was sur transects we termine eithe abitat chara each location ng between rimary focus otential for d the badge ong each tr burrows, b e and multip e appears t surrounding rs occurs in veys associ ocket gophe m burrow de eview of liter s are badge Tailings Cov e Cover Sys (grams cm-3 rformance 4 2 2 5 4† 0 0 be 68 cm. d animal s rt recorded ebrush com hus sp.), k us auduboni tis), badger omys gunnis ity included The norther ype and no rveyed for b ere walked i er the prese acteristics (s n in Figure D 100 and 40 s of the surv burrows on er, Gunnison ransect for a urrow densi ple active pra to be suitab g the mill site n the vicinity ated with th ers 34 years epths for an rature for bu er (228 cm), er Design R MWH America Augus stem 3) urveys for the presenc mmunity, inclu kangaroo m ii), coyote (C (Taxidea ta soni). Addit d pinyon m rn pocket go o mention o urrowing an n Big Sageb ence of burro see Figure D-2) with a 00 m, depen vey was on the tailings n prairie dog animal sight ities, and ha airie dog colo le habitat fo e, but there y of the mill he Environm later. imal species urrow depths , northern po Report as, Inc. st 2012 sites ce or uding mouse Canis axus), tional mouse opher of the imals brush owing D.2). 50 m nding three cells g, and tings, abitat onies or the is no site. mental s that s, the ocket Denison M gopher ( dog were pocket g attempt w confirm a hectares burrow d dog colo estimated ranges fr ines Corp. 182 cm), an e observed d opher occur was made t a badger bu . However, density is mo onies that w d at 148 bu rom 0 to 148 a. The pro consists erosion attenua layer ov system intrusion minimiz combina expecte thicknes attenua the com cover. thicknes extend Burrowi of 122 Standar compac burrows Howeve because of the vegetat prairie d will not badger prairie d present badger and Gr species the maj found in tailings colonize habitat. nd Gunnison during the 2 rs in the vic to estimate urrow. The within the e ore on the o were located rrows per h 8 burrows pe oposed cov s of the foll protection tion layer ov ver 76 cm o does not c n by burrow ze burrowing ation with a ed burrowin ss of the co tion layer lo mpacted zon Considering ss and phys below 122 ng into the h cm will be rd Proctor d cted zone, th s being dev er, this is no e of the follo Mill site, p ion that is s dogs coloniz match thei will be grea dogs are no will be low diet consist rossenheider s occurring in jority of the n the Junipe cells domin e the cells d n prairie dog 012 animal inity of the m burrow dens highest den entire bound order of one in the area ectare. Ove er hectare. er system i lowing layer layer over 1 ver up to 110 of a grading contain a b wing anima g animal intru a highly com g depths a over (total o ocated at a d ne will all co g the anima sical nature cm or into t highly comp restricted b ensity). If a he maximum veloped in t ot expected owing: 1) a prairie dog short in verti zing the tailin r habitat req atly influenc ot present o because of ts primarily o r 1980). A n the vicinity diet of bad er community nated by her uring the pe D-15 g (122 cm). survey, whil mill site from sities for ba sity was est dary of the burrow per a of the Mil er the entire is a monolit rs from top 107 cm of a 0 to 136 cm and radon biobarrier (e ls. The p usion throug mpacted laye among spec of 308 cm), depth below ontribute to l species th of the cover the very top acted radon because of animals are a m burrow dep the upper p to occur du although prai habitat is c ical stature ngs cells is v quirements; ced by the p n the tailing the importan of prairie do Among thes y of the Mill dgers that in y, but it is h rbaceous sp erformance p Updated T Both the b le there is n m both the 1 dgers but it timated to b Mill site, it 250 to 300 ll site, the g e Mill site th thic evapotr to bottom: a water stor of a highly c attenuation .g. cobble roposed co gh the use o er placed a cies that m the use of w 122 cm, an minimizing at may inha r, it is not an p portion of n attenuation the high de able to burro pth of 308 c portion of t uring a perfo irie dog colo characterize (Holechek e very low bec and 2) the presence or gs cells, the nce of prairi ogs, ground e species, site and the nhabit this ighly unlikel pecies or ev period becau Tailings Cov badger and no evidence 1978 and 20 t was not alw be one burro was estima hectares. W greatest bur e prairie do ranspiration 15 cm of rage, biointr compacted r layer. The layer) to m over system of thick layer at a depth t may inhabit f a highly c nd a final 76 any biointru abit the tailin nticipated th the highly c n layer that b ensity of thi ow into or th cm (Table D. he radon a ormance per onies are fou ed by low et al. 1998); cause plant c use of the r absence o e probability ie dog in the squirrels, an the prairie erefore assu area. Grou y that they w ven big sage use of the la er Design R MWH America Augus Gunnison p that the nor 012 surveys ways possib ow per 80 to ated that ba Within the p rrow density g burrow de (ET) cover f a topsoil-g rusion and r radon attenu e proposed c minimize pote m is designe rs of soil cov hat is below the site. compacted r 6 cm layer b usion throug ngs cells an hat burrowin compacted z begins at a d is material hrough the h .8) could res attenuation l riod of 200 y und in the vi plant cover the potenti cover and st tailings cel of prairie do of badger b e badger die nd gophers dog is the umed to mak und squirrels would inhab ebrush that c ack of approp Report as, Inc. st 2012 prairie rthern s. An ble to o 100 adger prairie y was ensity r that gravel radon uation cover ential ed to ver in w the The radon below h the d the g will zone. depth (95% highly sult in layer. years cinity r and al for tature lls by ogs; if being et; the (Burt only ke up s are bit the could priate Denison M Table M S Pocket mo Pinyon mo Deer mou Kangaroo Vole Desert co Long-taile Striped Sk Badger Gunnison Red fox Coyote Burrowing Northern D.6 S There ar The first site. The over the volume. There ar sustainab (EC), so macronu D.9 prese sustained potential ines Corp. b. Howeve season opportu stature may att time pe potentia maximu probabi compac burrow the burr D.8. Maxim esa Mill Sit Species ouse ouse use o rat ottontail ed weasel kunk prairie dog g owl Pocket Goph SOIL REQUI e two key co is to select e second is t long term b re a number bility in sem dium levels trient conce ents levels f d plant grow cover soil c er, with pote species (s nity for prai may be red ract badgers eriods beyon al to burrow um burrowin lity of this ction zone be below this d rowing depth mum Burrow e During th Max Aban Aban Most c use bu Ab er REMENTS omponents t long-lived s to provide a by supplying r of soil cha mi-arid enviro , percent or ntrations, av for most of th wth. In addit ollected from ential change see discuss rie dog colo duced and b s and the pr nd 200 year 20-30 cm in ng depth of extensive b eginning at depth, and th h of its prey. w Depths fo e Required ximum Depth 30 34 60 48 34 ndoned burro surface nes ndoned burro surface nes 90 228 122 100 common beha rrows of othe like the badg bandoned bur 182 FOR SUSTA to establishi species that cover soil th g plants with aracteristics onments an rganic matte vailable wate hese soil pro tion, the tab m stock piles D-16 es in climate sion under nization on bare ground obability of b rs. If this co nto the rado f the speci burrowing is a depth of 1 he burrowing or Wildlife th Performan h (cm) ws and st W ws and st J V avior is to er animals ger rrows W AINABLE P ng an ET co are adapted hat will funct h adequate that are par d include th er, texture, b er holding ca operties that ble includes s at the Whit Updated T e and a trans climate cha the tailings may increa burrowing a ondition occ on attenuatio es. Howev low becau 122 cm, the g depth of b hat Inhabit nce Period o Cary 1911 Reynolds and Reynolds and Reynolds and Reynolds and Wilson and R Chapman an Feldhammer Jackson 196 Lindsey 1976 Verdolin et al Feldhammer http://carnivo Haug et al. 19 Wiscomb and LANT GRO over with a s d to the env tion as an ef amounts of rticularly imp he following bulk density apacity, and t are conside soil property te Mesa Mill Tailings Cov sition to dom ange) there cover syste se. Prairie nimals may curs, then b on layer stric ver, it is b se of the p fact that pra badgers will or may Inha of at Least 2 Source d Wakkinen 1 d Laundre 19 d Laundre 19 d Wakkinen 1 Reeder 2005; d Willner 197 et al. 2003 1 6 l. 2008 et al. 2003 ra.com/topic/ 993 d Messmer 20 OWTH sustainable vironmental ffective plan water, nutri portant to a : pH, elect y, cation exc d soil microo ered necess y levels from site in May er Design R MWH America Augus minance by w e may be em because dog coloniz likely increa badgers hav ctly based o believed tha placement o airie dogs w be influence abit the Wh 200 Years 1987 988 988 1987 78 /932884/1/ 010 plant comm conditions o nt growth me ients and ro chieve long trical conduc change cap organisms. T sary for long m soil sampl 2009. Report as, Inc. st 2012 warm more plant zation ase in e the on the at the of the ill not ed by hite unity. of the edium ooting -term ctivity acity, Table -term les of Denison M The soil growth in phospho include: p Cation ex cover so content a the recla cover de range sh Table Growth Soi pH (units) EC (mmh Sodium a Organic m Texture (% Bulk dens Water hol (cm H2O/c Cation ex (meq/100 Total nitro Extractab (mg/kg) Extractab (mg/kg) †Calculate In order sustainab organic m improve matter w combinat ratio for s as Bioso These a cycle nut D.7 S D.7.1 C Climate increases In the co ines Corp. properties o nclude: pH, rus. Those percent orga xchange cap oil will have and a recom amation proc sign and wil own in Table D-9. Soil P , Along with l Property ) os/cm) dsorption rati matter (%) %) sity (g/cm3) ding capacity cm soil) change capa g) ogen (%) le phosphoru le potassium ed values for the po ble support f matter conte available wa will depend u tion of manu sustained pl l® which has mendments trients over t SUSTAINAB Climate Cha change pre s in tempera oming centur of the potent EC, sodium e soil proper anic matter, pacity was n an acceptab mmendation cess. Bulk l be controlle e D.9. Properties a h Analytica Le Sus 6. o 1. 35 to 1. y 0.0 city 5 0.0 s 6 60 otential cove for the vege ent, nitrogen ater holding upon availab ure and hay lant growth. s been succ would also time and ens ILITY OF TH nge dictions in t ature (USGC ry, mean glo tial cover so m adsorption rties that ap total nitroge not measured ble level for that an orga density of th ed during th and Their Ra l Results of White evel for tainability .6 to 8.4 ≤4.0 ≤12 .5 to 3.0 o 50% clay .2 to 1.8 08 to 0.16 5 to 30 05 to 0.5 6 to 11 0 to 120 er soil to f tation compo and potass capacity an bility in the re to provide a A third opt cessfully use o provide a sure sustain HE COVER the southwe CRP 2009) a obal tempera D-17 oil that are a n ratio (SAR ppear to be en, and extra d in the pote r sustained anic matter he emplaced e constructio ange of Val f Soil Availa Mesa Mill S Refe Munshowe Munshowe Munshowe Brady (197 Brady (197 Brady (197 Brady (197 Munshowe Harding (1 Ludwick an (1976) Ludwick an (1976) function as onent of the sium levels. nd cation exc egion and c a material tha tion would b ed in mined l source of s able plant g DESIGN est suggest and decreas ature could i Updated T acceptable fo R), percent c deficient an actable potas ential cover s plant growth amendment d cover mat on process t ues Importa able for ET Site erence er (1994) er (1994) er (1994) 74) 74) 74) 74) er (1994) 954) nd Rogers nd Rogers a normal e ET cover, it An organic change capa could either at has the ap be the use of land reclama soil microorg rowth. warming in ses in precip ncrease sig Tailings Cov or sustaining clay content, nd would ne ssium. soil, but it is h based on t be added t terial will be to be within ant for Sust Cover Cons Level On-Sit 7.7 to <1 <0 0 to 36 to 50 1.59 to 0.084- Not me 0.02 to 10 to 11 to soil and p t will be ame c matter ame acity. The s be compost ppropriate c f a commerc ation over th ganisms tha n the region pitation (Sea nificantly, w er Design R MWH America Augus g long-term , and extrac eed improve believed tha the percent to the soil d e specified i the sustaina tainable Pla struction at ls for te Soil o 8.1 .5 0.5 0.4 0% clay o 1.99† -0.14† easured o 0.05 o 57 o 36 rovide long ended to imp endment wil source of org ted biosolids arbon to nitr cial product he past 30 y at will functio n, with signif ager et al. 2 ith an assoc Report as, Inc. st 2012 plant ctable ement at the t clay during n the ability ant t the -term prove l also ganic s or a rogen such years. on to ficant 2007). ciated Denison M increase Bryant 2 biologica evolution function The clim indicate droughts argue tha poleward mainly b divergen transient Climate, vegetatio nutrient influence interactio whether climate c current a involved. affect glo the most biotic inte Predicted atmosph seasona variability the regio caused s juniper w examined They sho aridity re 100 year estimates as pinyo reduced The spec include i and redu efficiency at each s the abiot dioxide, t plant lev ines Corp. in the freq 008; Krawch al response, nary change may be sign ate model e that continu s. Analysis o at increasing d expansion being driven ce due to c eddies. more than a on. At finer status, pH, e the potent ons, such a an individua change asso and future v . Sala et al obal biodive t important d eractions (in d changes eric concen lity, and dis y in climate on more seve substantial d woodland in d correlation ow that con lative to oth rs, combined s for the 21s on pine. T growth rates cific physiolo ncreased ne uced stoma y (Patterson stage of the tic factor mo temperature el in terms uency of ex huk et al. 20 especially e, impacts o nificant. estimates an ued warming of the result g aridity in th of the sub by a decli changes in m any other fa scales, othe water-hold ial presence s competitio al plant is a ociated with vegetation p . (1997) ide rsity over th driver of cha vasive spec in climate trations of C stribution of patterns. R ere than the die-off of pin the Four C ns between nifer trees in er regions. d with Interg st century to hey conclud s and increa ogical effects et photosyn tal conducta and Flint 19 ir life cycle ( ost limiting t e, and soil m of growth a xtreme even 009). If the the capaci on species alyzed by C g could prod ts of 24 diffe he southwes tropical dry ne in winte mean atmos actor, contro er factors su ing capacity e or absenc on for resou actually foun increasing patterns. O entified five d he next 100 ange, followe cies) and dire that may o CO2, increas precipitation Recent tempe natural drou nyon pine tre Corners regio climate and n the south They used governmenta predict the ded that wo ase mortality s of increas nthesis, redu ance which 990). Ambie (Morison and o vegetation moisture effe nd resource D-18 nts, such as rate of glob ty of popula distributions Cayan et al (2 duce increas erent circula st would be a zones as t er precipitati spheric flow ols the broad uch as local y and the ce of a spec urces (light, nd at any p greenhouse Other human different driv years. Glo ed by climat ect CO2 fertil occur in the sed surface n, more freq erature incre ughts of the ees in appro on (Breshea d the radial west are pa climate-tree al Panel on likely fate o oodlands an at many so ing GHG em uced photore decreases ent tempera d Lawlor 19 n, especially ects on plan e acquisition Updated T s droughts ( bal climate c ations to m s, communit 2010) and S sed aridity, ation models an expected the planet w on associat and reduce dscale distri l environme physical el cies. Howe water, nut particular loc e gas emiss n-influenced vers of chan obally, land te change, a lizing or wat e southwest e temperatur quent clima eases have last several oximately 4, ars et al. 20 growth of t articularly s e growth rela Climate Ch of important nd forests w uthwest site missions (pa respiration, c transpiratio ature affects 999). Water y in arid and t physiology . In additio Tailings Cov (IPCC 2007 change exce migrate or u ty structure Seager and overprinted s lead Seag d outcome th warms. Sou ted with inc ed moisture butions of p ntal conditio ements of ever, intra- a rients), ultim cation (Syke ions (IPCC factors are nge that can use change airborne nitr ter use effici tern U.S. in res, change atic extremes made the c centuries. 600 square 005). Willia trees across ensitive to ations calcul hange (IPCC southwest tr will experien es as the cen articularly CO changes in on and incre plants direc (i.e. soil mo d semi-arid y are exhibit on to the ind er Design R MWH America Augus ; Westerling eeds the pa undergo ada and ecosy Vecchi (201 by more se er and Vecc hat results fr uthwest dryi creased moi convergenc plant species ons including aspect or s and inter-sp mately deter es 2009). R 2007) influe e, however, n be expect e was consid rogen depos ency effects nclude incre s in the am s, and a gr current droug This drough miles of pin ams et al. (2 s North Ame temperature lated for the C) climate m ree species nce substan ntury progres O2) on veget dark respira eases water ctly and indi oisture) is us regions. Ca ted at the w dividual effec Report as, Inc. st 2012 g and ace of aptive ystem 0) all evere chi to rom a ing is isture ce via s and g soil slope pecific rmine Rapid ences also ted to dered sition, s. eased mount, reater ght in ht has nyon- 2010) erica. e and e past model such ntially sses. tation ation, r use rectly sually arbon whole- cts of Denison M increasin and ecos Plants ar activity ( ecosyste Changes world (B 2003). P Specific among s coexisten resource influence as photo Shifts in temperat Hutchin competit (Owensb 1992) is In an effo (2012a) conseque dominate sites stra rich. Th latitude d than eith snow vs seasona accumula Increasin could sh storage dominate substant the semi- condition suggest much sno warming decrease become addition, a shift in shift awa (Schlaep ines Corp. ng temperatu system-level re finely tun (i.e. phenolo ems are be s in the phen radley et al Phenology o timing is cr species in nce in diver es. Global cl es the timing period. the relative tures, or so 1991; Neil ive ability o by et al. 199 limiting. ort to improv used a soi ences of ch ed by big sa atified along e study incl dry regions er high elev s. rain, is lity. Ecosy ated in a s ng evaporat ift the seaso in snowpac ed (with gen ial impacts -arid wester ns described no dramatic ow to begin , these dry e. Marginal unsuitable f if seasonali the water b ay from deep pfer et al. 20 ures, CO2 is process (Lo ed to the se ogy) provide eing influenc nology of pla . 1999; Fitte of plant spe rucial to op their phen rse plant co imate chang g of developm e competitiv il moisture son and M of C4 plants 99), especia ve forecasts l water sim hanges in s agebrush. a climatic g uded sites i face consid vation or arc of lesser i ystem wate snowpack a ive demand onal hydrolo k or wet w nerally dry s on vegetatio n U.S. unde d by the sno changes in with (which to medium areas near for big sage ty of precipi balance from p rooted shr 12a; Lauenr s the additio ong and Hut easonality of e some of ced by glob ants have b er and Fitte ecies is impo ptimal seed ology is a ommunities ge could sign ment, both a ve ability of may result Marks 1994) s (such as ally where s of plant resp mulation mod now accum The authors gradient from in eastern U derably differ ctic regions. mportance er balance and subseq d during the ogy of a syst inter soils c soils and pe on composit er declining s ow-precipitat the water ba best describ areas will li the southern ebrush ecos tation shifts m storage to ubs like big roth 1996; Sa D-19 onal interact tchin 1991). f their enviro the most c bal environm been noted i er 2002; Wa ortant both set for indi n important by reducing nificantly alte alone and th f plants tha in changes ). Increas grasses) re soil moisture ponses to fu del to incre ulation and s examined m dry, warm Utah. Resul rent conseq Their resul for ecosys was relativ uently melte e cold seaso tem from sto creating a s eriodic brief tion. Implica snow conditi tion ratios. alance of dr bes the Whi kely becom n limit of its systems in t toward the w pulse domi sagebrush t ala et al. 199 Updated T ive effect on onment, and compelling mental cha n recent de alther et al. at the indiv ividuals and t mechanis g competitio er plant phe hrough intera at experienc to their spa ses in temp elative to C3e (Neilson 1 uture climatic ease the lev melt for w 120 rando m and snow lts from thei quences from lts indicate t stem water vely unaffe ed or stead on, caused orage-domin season with wet pulses) ations for b ons depend The results ry to medium te Mesa Mil e even drie range (such he future (S warm seaso inated with a to shallower 97). Tailings Cov n photosynt d shifts in th evidence th ange (Clelan ecades in reg 2002; Parm vidual and p d population sm for main on for pollin enology beca actions with ce changes atial distribu perature ma 3 plants (sh 1993) or tem c conditions vel of unde water balanc omly selecte poor to wet ir analysis s m changing that the form balance th ected by w dily infiltrate by increase nated (with s reliably we ), a change ig sagebrus d on the area of Schlaepf m areas, bec l site). How er and veget h as southea Schlaepfer e on, these are an accompa r rooted spe er Design R MWH America Augus hetic produc he timing of hat species nd et al. 2 gions aroun mesan and population le ns; and var ntaining sp nators and ause temper other cues, in CO2, su ution (Long ay enhance hrubs and t mperature (E Schlaepfer erstanding o e in ecosys ed big sageb t, cold and showed that snow cond m of precipita han precipit whether wat ed into the ed temperat substantial w et soils) to that would sh ecosystem a-specific cli fer at al. (20 cause there wever, becau tation activit astern Utah) et al. 2012b eas may und anying veget ecies like gra Report as, Inc. st 2012 ctivity plant s and 2007). d the Yohe evels. iation ecies other rature such urface g and e the trees) Esser et al. of the stems brush snow t mid- itions ation, tation er is soil. tures, water pulse have ms in matic 012a) is not use of ty will ) may b). In dergo tation asses Denison M In a tota (1994) an future ch the great challengi required as to po logical an processe cover sy Natural a evolution predictio reconstru lake sedi Waugh a past but of global inadequa year des Ranges inferred condition and Late Waugh a drivers o those as glacial a possible performa climate re 80 cm m precipitat anticipate and wett period th analog a the level develope future ch approach work is n Based o U.S. is fo winter p accompa is correc shallow r ines Corp. ally different nd Waugh (2 hanges. The test uncertai ing need to by regulato ossible long- nalogy to inv es that are s ystem. As s analog studie n of enginee ns extrapola ucted past c iment pollen and Petersen also on pos and regiona ate for local ign life of ta of possible from natura ns 1,000 yea er Pleistocen and Peterse f future clim sociated wit and Altitherm future clim ance of taili econstructio mean annua tion could a ed to occur ter compare he climate w approach pro of resolutio ed) that it b hanges in ve h in combina needed befor n the prece or warmer c precipitation anied shift in ct, there wou rooted spec t approach 2010) used e authors se inties in des extrapolate ry agencies -term chang vestigate nat similar to tho such, analog es are valua ered covers ated from th climate chan , and archae n (1994) rep ssible local m al climate ma climate proje ilings reposi future clima al proxy reco ars into the f e according n (1994) co mate change, th the last g mal climates mate and ngs disposa ons provide w al precipitati also occur a approximate ed to curren would be slig ovides a uni on is so coa becomes ex egetation fo ation with clim re these too ding review conditions an may dec n the water b uld be a cha ies like gras to making past climate elected a nov igning cover the results . Natural an ges in engin tural and arc ose known o gs can be t able in unde s that do no he results o ge using av eological rec port that pale manifestation ay enhance ections. Re itories are in ate at tailing ords of pas future can be to Waugh a oncluded fro , climate ext glacial and in s in the Fo should be al facilities. working leve ion. If we at the White ely 60,000 ye t conditions ghtly warme que method arse (based tremely diffi or the White mate models ls can be ap , the most c nd greater e rease and balance from ange over ti sses. In ad D-20 climate cha e change as vel approach rs for tailings of short-term nalog studie neered cove chaeologica or predicted thought of a rstanding an ot arise dur of short-term vailable proxy cords from th eoclimatic re ns of future our underst egional clima ncapable of r gs disposal t climate ch e captured w and Petersen m their inve tremes in th nterglacial p our Corners incorporate For Monti els of 2 to 10 assume tha Mesa Mill s ears into the , and if con r and wette d for making on the larg icult and hig e Mesa Mill s may be the pplied with a consistent v evaporative l summer m winter stor ime from de dition, with Updated T ange project an analog o h to climate s repositorie m tests to th es provide cl ers. Analog l occurrence to occur in as uncontro nd evaluatin ring short-te m tests. W y data from he Four Cor ecords provi global chan tanding of cl ate models t resolution on sites the F hange. A r within a perio n (1994) and estigation th e next 1,000 periods. The s region pro ed in asse cello, Utah, 0o C mean a at a similar site, then d e future the nditions post r than curre g projections ge temperatu ghly unrelia site or any e most effec reasonable view of clima loss of wate precipitation rage to pulse eep rooted s continual in Tailings Cov tions, Waug of possible lo change pre es stem from he long perf lues from pa g studies inv es of materia some part o lled, long-te ng emergent erm tests or Waugh and tree rings, p rners Region de not only nge. By com imate-chang hat could ad n the spatia Four Corners reasonable r od of spann d Waugh (20 at despite u 0 years likel erefore, pale ovide reaso essments o , full glacial annual tempe r range of t uring the ne climate wou t-glaciation ent condition s 1,000 year ure and pre able to mak y waste faci ctive path for e degree of c ate change er. It also ap n may inc e dominated species like creases in a er Design R MWH America Augus gh and Pete ocal respons edictions bec m the scientif formance pe ast environm volve the us als, condition of the engine erm experim properties i r from nume Petersen (1 packrat midd n. a window o mparison, mo ge drivers bu ddress the 1 l scales requ s region ma range of cli ing the Holo 010). uncertainty a y will not ex eo-records o nable range of the long l and Altithe erature and temperature ext glacial p uld be a lot c result in a w ns. Althoug rs into the fu ecipitation ra ke prediction lity. The an rward, but fu confidence. in the south ppears likely crease, with d. If this sce shrubs, to atmospheric Report as, Inc. st 2012 ersen ses to cause fically eriods ments se of ns, or eered ments. in the erical 1994) dens, on the odels ut are ,000- uired. ay be matic ocene about xceed of full es of -term ermal 38 to e and phase colder warm h the uture, anges ns on nalog urther hwest y that h an enario more c CO2 Denison M there wo advantag possible resulting From the the impa commun a comm dominan increase D.7.2 P Plant suc beginning dominate successi as in som place. Two com increase implicatio vegetatio proceeds (e.g., gra (strata) o processe replaced and type layers. ines Corp. uld be a shi ge to warm climate sce plant comm e review of c act of variou ity type that munity domin ce by warm and precipit Plant Comm ccession is g with relat ed by long-li on can be re me desert an mmon aspec in the rela ons to the fu on, e.g., he s, both abov asses may b of vegetation es occur bel by deeper- es of specie ift in compet season gra enarios for th munity type climate chan s climate ch will be main nated initial m season g tation decrea unity Succe the ecologic ively-short l ved, genera elatively rap nd arctic reg cts of succe ative amoun unction of c eight, cover ve- and belo be replaced n occurs, wi lowground. rooted spec es increase, titive advant asses over c he White M that would ge literature hange scena ntained thro lly by cool grasses as ases and sh ession and cal process ived herbac ally woody sp id, especiall gions, but th ession are nts of wood cover system rage, and wground. A by shrubs), ith different Root syste cies, root bio and the de D-21 tage to C4 ov cool season esa Mill site develop du e applicable t arios, it is o ughout the 2 season gr atmospher hifts from win Potential fo of direction ceous plants pecies. Suc y in regions is process o 1) an incre dy plants. ms. Vegetat stratification Aboveground coverage of species occ ems become omass increa ensity of the Updated T ver C3 spec n shrubs. T e, their likeli uring the re to the south our conclusio 200 to 1,000 rasses, with ric CO2 and nter storage or Species al vegetatio s and culmi ccession occ s of higher ra of vegetation ease in veg Both of the tion structur n. Structure d, the height f the soil sur cupying diffe e deeper as ases in lowe e root syste Tailings Cov ies, which w Table D.10 p ihood of occ equired perf west U.S. a on that the 0 year perfo h a long-te d temperatu to pulse dom Colonizatio on change o nating in pl curs on all s ainfall, or it c n change is etation stru ese aspects re refers to e increases t of the vege rface increas erent vertica s shallow-roo er soil depth em increase er Design R MWH America Augus would give fu presents a l currence an formance pe nd an analy most likely ormance per erm transitio ure continue minated. on over time, us lant commu sites. The ra can be very constantly ta cture and 2 s have prof the shape o s as succe etation incre ses, and lay al layers. S oted specie hs as the nu es in the va Report as, Inc. st 2012 urther list of d the eriod. sis of plant iod is on to es to sually nities ate of slow, aking 2) an found of the ssion eases yering imilar s are mber arious Denison M Tabl Occurre Possib Sce Warmer a than Pres Warmer a than Pres Warmer th with Simil Precipitat Cooler an Present4 Cooler an Present5 Cooler tha with Simil Precipitat Dryer than with Simil Temperat Wetter tha with Simil Temperat 1Results i2Results i summer m3Results i4Results i5Results i6Results i7Results i8Results i9Likelihoo and Seag As the v relatively by wood proportio Early suc upper so depth. Because cover ar construct ways, co ines Corp. e D.10. Pos ence and Pr G ble Climate enarios and Dryer sent1 and Wetter sent2 han Present ar Total ion3 nd Wetter than nd Dryer than an Present ar ion6 n Present ar ture7 an Present ar ture8 n less total pr n more total months. n no change n more total p n less total pr n no change n less total pr n more total p od of occurren er and Vecch vegetation s y shallow roo dy species onately more ccessional p oil profile. L This can be e of success re likely to tion are not onditions wi ssible Clima rojected Ch Grass/forb C Likelih Occur Highly Lik Unlikely Unlikely n Highly Un Highly Un Highly Un Unlikely Unlikely recipitation bu precipitation in total precip precipitation w recipitation bu in total precip recipitation. precipitation. nce based on hi 2010, with a shifts from d ot systems b (e.g., shr e roots in de plant commu Late success e both a po sional chang become ve likely to be s ill be more ate Scenari hange in Pla Community hood of rence9 kely G s W m c p t G s nlikely S w nlikely S w nlikely S w G s a S p ut shift to less with shift to le pitation but sh with shift to m ut shift to mor pitation but sh n majority of a focus on the dominance but with very rubs and t eeper layers unities tend sional comm ositive and ges in the v ery different similar to tho favorable, D-22 ios for the W ant Species y Establishe Projected P Seeded Grass/forb co species. Will depend o more precipita community wo plants; if more the plant com Grass/forb co species. Shift to more winter months Shift to more winter months Shift to more winter months Grass/forb co species beca atmospheric C Shift to more precipitation. s snow and m ess snow and hift to less sno more snow in w re snow in win hift to more sn climate mode e southwest U by herbaceo y dense root trees), whic s, the hydrol to extract m munities hav a negative vegetation, over time. ose soon aft e.g., evapo Updated T White Mesa s Compositi ed on the So lant Commu Grass/Forb ommunity with on distribution ation in winte ould experien e precipitation mmunity would ommunity with woody plants s. woody plants s. woody plants s. ommunity with use of less ov CO2. woody plants more rain in wi d more rain in ow and more winter months nter months now in winter el estimates U.S. ous plants mass in the ch have d logical dyna most of the w ve greater a in the fun the plant-so Condition er construct otranspiratio Tailings Cov a Mill Site, L on Compar oil Cover nity Type in as the Initia h an increase n of additional er months, the nce an increa n in the summ d continue as h an increase s because of s because of s because of h an increase verall moistur s because of inter months. n winter mon rain in winter s. months. analyzed by (e.g., grass e upper profi eeper roots amics of the water they tr ability to ex ctional effic oil-water cha ns 200 year tion was com n will likely er Design R MWH America Augus Likelihood o red to the In 1,000 Years l Community in warm sea l precipitation en the plant se in woody mer months, t a grass/forb in warm sea more snow in more snow in more snow in in warm sea re and increas more winter ths or more r r months. Cayan et al. ses), which ile, to domin s systems system cha ranspire from xtract water ciency of co aracteristics rs or more mpleted. In s y be higher Report as, Inc. st 2012 of nitial with y son n. If hen type. son n n n son se in rain in 2010 have nance with ange. m the from overs. of a after some thus Denison M reducing ways, co reach the these cha As state following cm of a w highly co The prop potential system is in combin among s climax co current c estimated commun However Mesa are site and plant com time will higher CO terms of vegetatio may esta from 132 state (Kle compacte below the other pla As discus changes percenta establish and big s establish species rabbitbru the next sagebrus plant com seeded s most like from coo only 10 t and galle have mig ines Corp. the amount onditions wil e buried tail anges have d earlier, th layers from water storag ompacted ra posed cove intrusion by s designed t nation with a species likely ommunity fo community ty d that it may ity (McLend r, if the most ea occurs ov a grassland mmunity type most likely O2 condition f plant succ on and soil c ablish on the 2 cm on site epper et al. ed radon at e compacted nt species th ssed above, in species ge of potent hing during t sagebrush w hed commun at end of th ush, broom s 100 years th sh will begin mmunity will species will ely continue ol season to to 20% of th eta. The re grated north t of deep inf l be less fa ings. Becau been accou he proposed m top to botto ge, biointrus don attenua er system d y plant roots to minimize a highly com y to inhabit t or the White ype at the si y take 25 to on and Red t likely clima ver the next d community e to remain. consist of w ns and a puls cession or conditions th e proposed c es in Utah (W 1985). Th ttenuation la d zone will a hat is likely t , the process s compositio tial species c he first 50 to would be the nity will cons he first 100 snakeweed, he plant com n to diminish consist of 5 be warm se through the o warm seas e original se mainder of t with the war filtration and avorable, e.g use success unted for in t d cover syst om: 15 cm sion and rad ation layer ov oes not co s during the plant root in mpacted laye the site duri e Mesa Mill te and the re o 50 years fo dente 1990; ate change s t 200 to 1,00 y dominated . It is theref warm seaso se dominate climate cha hat big sage cover system Weaver and e thickness ayer located all contribute to colonize t s of success on in the ta colonization o 100 years e primary inv sist of 60 to years. The and a few g mmunity will h. By the e 50% seeded eason plants remainder o son species eeded speci the commun rming climat D-23 stability of g., deeper r sion is a pro he cover des tem is a m of a topsoil- don attenuat ver 76 cm o ntain a bio required pe ntrusion thro er placed at ng the 200 site is belie elatively dee or sagebrus Newman an scenario of a 00 years, it i d by warm s fore forecast on species t ed precipitati ange, there ebrush would m. Maximum Clements 1 of the cove at a depth e to preventi he site. sion and the ailings cove would be fo s. The seed vader into th o 70% seed ese non-seed grass and fo begin to tra nd of the se and 50% no s and most o of the perfor s, a complet es still prese nity would c te. Updated T the vegetati root systems ocess that is sign. onolithic ET -gravel erosi ion layer ov of a grading barrier (e.g erformance p ough the use a depth tha to 1,000 ye eved to be B ep fine loam sh to coloniz nd Redente a warmer an is unlikely th season spe ted that pote that will be on regime. R is ample e d be the mo m rooting de 1938) to 200 er (total of 3 below 122 ing biointrus effect of cli er system. or a small pe ded commun he cover sys ed species ded species orb species c ansition to w econd 100 y on-seeded s of these will rmance perio te dominanc ent and thes consist of wa Tailings Cov ion may be s may have s near-unive T cover that ion protectio ver up to 110 and radon a . cobble lay period. The e of thick lay at is below th ar performa Big Sagebru my soils that ze the estab 2001; Pasc nd dryer clim hat sagebrus cies may be ential specie the most c Regardless evidence ba ost deep roo pths for big 0 cm on site 308 cm), the cm, and a f sion by big s mate chang Our best ercent of non nity will be h stem. It is e and 30 to 4 s will include common in t warm season years it is es species and l be grasses od with a co ce by grass se would inc arm season er Design R MWH America Augus greater. In e the potent ersal ecologi t consists o on layer ove 0 to 136 cm attenuation l yer) to min e proposed c yers of soil c he rooting de ance period. sh based o are present. blished grass chke et al. 2 mate for the W sh will rema e the most es invasions ompetitive u of what occu ased on cu oted species sagebrush r es in Washin e use of a h final 76 cm sagebrush o e will bring a forecast fo n-seeded sp highly sustain estimated tha 40% non-se e big sageb the area. D n species an stimated tha many of the s. This tren omplete tran ses, and pos clude blue g species tha Report as, Inc. st 2012 other tial to ically, of the r 107 m of a layer. imize cover cover epths The n the . It is s/forb 2003). White ain on likely s over under urs in urrent s that range ngton highly layer or any about r the ecies nable at the eeded brush, During nd big at the e non- d will sition ssibly grama at will Denison M REFERE Alderson D Bartos, D M Bradley, ch Brady, N. Breshear H R N Burt, W. C Carnivora Cary, M. A Cayan, D so N Chapman Cleland E re Cooke, R B Coupland S Dames a U DePuit, E L DePuit, E la C E ines Corp. ENCES , James an Department o Dale and Ph Management N. L., Leopo hange in Wis . C. 1974. T rs, D.D., N.S Hastens, M.L Regional veg National Acad H. and R. Company. Bo a. 2012. http 1911. No Agriculture. G D., T. Das, D. outhwest U. National Acad n, J. and G. W E., I. Chuine esponse to g R. V. and A. Berkeley, CA. d, R. T. and Saskatchewa and Moore. 1 Utah. Prepare Edward J. 1 loyd (ed.) Re E. J. 1982. ands: status Coal Mining Experiment S nd W. Curtis of Agriculture hillip Sims. 27:33-36. ld, A. C., Ro sconsin. Proc The Nature a S. Cobb, P.M L. Floyd, J. getation die- demy of Scie P. Grossen oston, MA. p://carnivora orth America Government . Pierce, T. P S. and the h demy of Scie Willner. 1978 , A. Menzel, lobal change Warren. 19 . R. E. Johns n. J. of Ecol 1978. Enviro ed for Energ 988. Produ eclamation of Cool-seaso of current te and Recla tation Resea s Sharp. 1 , Agriculture 1974. Root ss, J. and W ceedings of t and Property M. Rich, K.P Belnap, J.J off in respo ences 102:15 nheider. 1980 .com/topic/93 an Fauna. Printing Offic Parnett, M. T hydrology o ences 107:21 8. Sylvilagus H. Mooney, e. Trends in E 973. Geom son. 1965. ogy 53:475-5 onmental Re y Fuels Nucl ctivity of rec f Surface-Min on perennial echnology. P amation in t arch Report 1 D-24 994. Gras Handbook N t dynamics o W. Huffaker. 1 the National of Soils. 8th P. Price, C.D J. Anderson onse to glob 5144-15148. 0. A field g 32884/1/. Si Biological S ce. Washing yree, and A. the early 21 271-21276. s audubonii. and M. Sch Ecology and orphology in Rooting cha 507. port—White lear, Inc. laimed lands ned Lands V grass estab Pages B1-B2 the Norther 194. Bozema Updated T ss Varieties No. 170. Wa of a shortgra 999. Phenol Academy of h ed. MacMill D. Allen, R.G n, O.B. Mye bal-change d uide to the ite accessed Survey of Co gton, D.C. Gershunov. 1st century Mammalian hwartz. 2007 Evolution 22 n Deserts. U aracteristics o Mesa Uraniu s—rangeland Vol II. CRC P lishment on 24 In Proceed rn Great Pl an, MT. Tailings Cov in the Unite ashington, D. ass ecosyste logical chang f Sciences 96 lian Press. N G. Balice, W ers, and C.W drought. Pro mammals. d in July 2012 olorado. U.S . 2010. Futu drought. Pr n Species No 7. Shifting p 2:357-365. University of of native gra um Project, S d. Pages 93 Press. Boca Northern Gr dings: Symp ains. Mon er Design R MWH America Augus ed States. C. em. J. of R ges reflect cl 6:9701–9704 New York, NY W.H.Romme, W. Meyer. 2 oceedings o Houghton M 2. S. Departme ure dryness roceedings o o. 106. 4 pp. plant phenolo f California P assland spec San Juan Co 3-129 In Hos Raton, FL. reat Plains m posium on su ntana Agricu Report as, Inc. st 2012 U.S. Range imate 4. Y. , J.H. 2005. of the Mifflin. ent of in the of the . ogy in Press. cies in ounty, ssner, mined urface ultural Denison M DePuit, E co m B DePuit, E M A Esser, G co Fang, Ho te N Feldhamm m Fitter, A. 2 Foxx, T. In In Gill, Rich ro E Groeneve a Harding, o Haug, E. N Hendricks J Hopkins, M Intergove S In Jackson, ines Corp. E. J., J. G. C ommunities mixture and Bozeman, MT E. J., J. G. C Mined Lands Agricultural Ex . 1992. Impli oniferous for ongliang, Shu emporally co North America mer, G., B. T management, H. and R. 96:1689–169 S. and G. D n Everett, R. ntermountain hard, Ingrid B oot biomass Ecosystems 2 eld, David. 1 rea index. J R. B. 1954. rchards. So , D. Millsap, North America s, David M. . (ed.) Semia Harold 195 Management ernmental Pa Science Basis ntergovernme H. H. T. 196 Coenenberg, on coal surf rate. Mo T. oenenberg, at Coalstrip xperiments S cations of cl rests. Ecolog unlin Liang, J ontinuous LA a. Remote S Thompson, a , and conserv S. Fitter. 20 91. . Tierney. 19 L. (ed.). P n Forest and Burke, Danie and soil org 2:226-236. 1997. Vertic . of Arid Env . Surface ac il Science So and M. Mart a. The Acad 1991. Gene arid Lands an 53. Root 6:382-92. anel on Clim s. Contribut ental Panel o 61. Mamma and C. L. S face mined ntana Agric and W. H. W Montana: P Station, Boze imate chang ical Applicat John R. Tow AI data sets b Sensing of En and J. Chapm vation. John 002. Rapid 987. Rootin Proceedings— Range Expe l Milchunas ganic matter cal point quad ironments. 3 ccumulation ociety of Ame tell. 1993. B demy of Natu esis and clas nd Deserts. developmen mate Change tion of Work on Climate C als of Wiscon D-25 Skilbred. 198 lands in Mo cultural Expe Willmuth. 197 Progress Rep eman, MT. e for produc ions 2:47-54 wnshend and based on int nvironment man. 2003. n Hopkins Un changes in g patterns in —Pinyon-Jun eriment Statio and William pools in the drat samplin 36:475-485. of nitrates an erica Procee Burrowing ow ural Sciences ssification of Marcel Dekk nt of grasse e (IPCC). 20 king Group I Change. sin. Univers Updated T 80. Establis ontana as inf eriment Sta 78 Researc port 1975—1 ction and dec 4. d Robert Dic tegrated filte 112:75-93. Wild Mamm niversity Pres flowering tim n the pinyon- niper Confere on. General Lauenroth. e shortgrass g and an ext nd other solu edings. 18:36 wl. In Poule s. Philadelph arid region s ker, Inc. New es on reveg 007. Climate to the Four sity of Wiscon Tailings Cov shment of div fluenced by ation Resea ch on Revege 977 Res. Re composition ckenson. 20 ring method als of North ss. Baltimore me in British -juniper wood ence. USDA Technical R 1999. Rela steppe of E xtinction facto uble salts in 69-372. e, A. and F. G hia, PA. soils. Pages w York, NY. getated land Change 20 rth Assessm nsin Press. er Design R MWH America Augus verse native seeding me rch Report etation of Su ep. 127. Mon in grasslands 08. Spatially : Examples America: bio e, MD. h plants. Sc dland. pp. 6 A Forest Se Report INT-21 ationship bet Eastern Colo or to calculat California or Gill (eds.) Bir s 33-79 In Sk d. J. of R 007: The Phy ent Report o Madison, WI Report as, Inc. st 2012 plant ethod, 163. urface ntana s and y and s from ology, cience 69-79 ervice. 15. tween orado. e leaf range rds of kujins, Range ysical of the I. Denison M Jackson, a Klepper, in R Krawchuk py Lauenrot C Lee, C. A sh Lindsey, Long, S. cl Ludwick, S McLendo m M L N McLendo in Monsen, W R Morison, te Munshow R Neilson, m Neilson, se A re ines Corp. R., J. Cana nalysis of roo E., K. Gano, n the 200 are Richland, WA k, M.A., Mo yrogeograph h, W. 1996. Climate Chan A. and W. K. hortgrass ste F. 1976. Ch P. and P.R limate chang A. E. and J State Univers on, T. 2010 modeling of Meeting pres ow-Level Ra NUREG/CP-0 on, T. and E. n a sagebrus Stephen. B. Wildlands. U RMRS-GTR-1 J. I. L., and emperature o wer, Frank. 1 Raton, FL. R. P. 1993 modelling app R. P. and D ensitivities fr And E. F. Re evegetation t adell, J. Ehle ot distribution and L. Cadw ea Control Zo A. oritz, M.A., hy: the curren Application nge 34:155-1 Lauenroth. eppe. The A haracteristics R. Hutchin. 19 ge: an overvie J. R. Rogers ity Agricultur 0. Effects of long-term su entation from adioactive W 0195, U.S. N F. Redente h steppe com , Richard Ste U.S. Departm 136-vol 1-3. R Lawlor, D. W on plant grow 1994. Practic 3. Transien proaches. Ec D. Marks. 19 rom climatic c edente. 200 techniques. eringer, H. M ns for terrest well. 1985. one of the Ha Parisien, M nt and future of patch mo 60 1994. Spat American Mid s of the Nata 991. Primary ew. Ecologic s. 1976. So ral Extension f plant succ uccessional m the Works Waste, Deco uclear Regu . 1990. Sec mmunity. Oe evens and N ment of Agri Rocky Moun W. 1999. Int wth. Plant, Ce cal Handboo nt ecotone r cological App 994. A glob change. Jou 01. Long-te J. Range Ma D-26 Mooney, O. rial biomes. Rooting dep anford Site. M.A., Van D distribution o odels to exam ial distributio land Natural l Den of the B y production cal Applicatio oil test expla n Service. Fo cession on th impacts us shop on Eng ommissionin latory Comm condary succ ecologia 85:2 ancy L. Shaw culture. Fo ntain Researc teractions be ell & Environm ok of Disturbe response to plications 3:38 al perspectiv rnal of Vege erm plant co anage. 54:71 Updated T Salsa and E Oecologia 1 pths and distr PNL-5247. Dorn, J. & of wildfire. PL mine regiona ons of grass a list 132:117-1 Badger. Nor in grassland ons 1:139-156 anation. 502 ort Collins, C he functionin sing EDYS E gineered Ba g, and Ura mission, Rock cession patte 293-300. w. 2004. Re orest Service ch Station. F etween incre ment 22:659 ed Land Rev climatic ch 85-395. ve of region etation Scien ommunity de 17-724. Tailings Cov E. Schulze. 08:389-411. ributions of d Pacific North Hayhoe, K LoS ONE 4: al sensitivity t and shrub ro 123. rthwest Scie ds and conife 6. 2 Service in A O. ng of engine Ecological S arrier Perform anium Mill T kville, Maryla erns followin estoring Wes e. General ort Collins, C asing CO2 c 9-682. vegetation. C ange: some nal vegetatio ce 5:715-730 evelopment er Design R MWH America Augus 1996. A g . deep rooted p hwest Labora K. (2009) G e5102. o climate cha oot systems nce 50:178-1 erous forests Action. Colo eered covers Simulation M mance Relat Tailings Fac and. g soil disturb stern Range Technical R CO. concentration CRC Press. e conceptua on and hydro 0. Newman, as influence Report as, Inc. st 2012 global plants atory, Global ange. in the 180. s with orado s and Model. ted to ilities, bance s and Report n and Boca l and ologic G. J. ed by Denison M Owensby co at Parmesa n Paschke, sh D Patterson fo B E a S Plummer R F Redente, su R Reynolds B Reynolds U Sala, O., re T U Schlaepfe a 1 Schlaepfe cu E Scurlock, A Seager, R A to ines Corp. y, C.E., Ham omposition c tmospheric C n, C. and G. atural system , M. W., E. F hrubs on m Development n, D.T. and E or plant com B.A. Kimball, Ernst, (eds.). griculture. A Soc.Am. r, A. Perry, D Range in Uta ish and Gam E. F., T. B. uccession o Research 3:15 s, T. and J. Burrowing Ro s, T. and W Undisturbed S W. Lauenro egions. pp. Types: The University Pre er, D., W. ccumulation 0.1111/j.136 er, D., W. L urrent and fu Ecography 35 , J. M. O., G Area Index, 19 R., Mingfang A., Lau, N., L o a more arid m, J.M., Knap change in a CO2. Global Yohe. 2003 ms. Nature 42 F. Redente, mining distur 14:459-480. E.P. Flint. 19 munities and N.J. Rosen Impact o ASA Spec. P Donald R. Ch ah. Utah Div me, Ephraim, Doerr, C. E. on disturbed 53-166. Laundre, 1 odents in Dist W. Wakkinen Soils in South oth, and R. 217-233 In eir Relevanc ess. Cambrid Lauenroth, for water ba 65-2486.2012 Lauenroth, an uture ranges 5:374-384. G. P. Asner, 932-2000. O g, T., Held, I. i, C., Velez, d climate in s pp, A.K. and tallgrass pra l Change Bio 3. A globally 21:37–42. and S. L. B bances in t . 990. Implicat d competitio berg, L.H. A f carbon dio ubl. No. 53. hristensen, a vision of Fish UT. Grygiel, and soils in no 988. Vertica turbed and U n, 1987. Bu heastern Idah Golluscio. Smith, T., H ce to Ecosy dge, England and J. Bra alance of mi 2.02642.x. nd J. Bradfo s, local suitab and S. T. G Oakridge Nat ., Kushnir, Y J., and N. N outhwestern D-27 d Auen, L.M. airie ecosyst ology 5:497-5 coherent fin rown. 2003 the Rocky M ions of incre n in natural Allen, Jr., G. oxide, trace Am. Soc. A and Stephen h and Game d M. E. Biond orthwest Co al Distributio Undisturbed S rrow Charac ho. America 1997. Plan H. Shugart, a ystem Prope d. dford. 201 d-latitude dr ord. 2012b. bility pattern Gower. 2001 tional Labora Y., Lu, J., Vec aik. 2007. M North Amer Updated T 1999. Biom tem after lon 506. ngerprint of c . Biology an Mountains, easing carbo and manage H. Heichel, e gases, and Agron., Crop B. Monsen. e. Publicatio dini. 1984. V lorado. Re on of Soil R Soils. Health cteristics of an Midland N nt functional and F. Wood erties and G 2a. Conse ry regions. G Effects of s, and mode . Worldwide atory. ORNL cchi, G., Hua Model project rica. Science Tailings Cov mass produc ng-term expo climate chang nd establishm USA. Land n dioxide an ed ecosyste C.W. Stube d climate c p Sci. Soc. A . 1968. Res on No. 68-3. Vegetation e eclamation a Removed by h Physics 54 Four Specie Naturalist 118 types in tem dward (eds.) Global Chan equences of Global Chan ecohydrolog el accuracy e Historical E L/TM-2001/26 ang, H., Har tions of an im e 316:1181-1 er Design R MWH America Augus ction and sp osure to ele ge impacts a ment of mou d Degradati nd climate ch ms. pp 83-1 er, D.E. Kiss change on g Am., and So storing Big-G Utah Divisi establishmen and Revege Four Speci :445–450. es of Roden 8:245–260. mperate sem . Plant Func nge. Camb f declining nge Biology. gical variable in big sageb Estimates of 68. rnik, N., Leet mminent tran 184. Report as, Inc. st 2012 pecies vated across untain on & hange 10 In el, S. global il Sci. Game ion of nt and tation es of nts in mi-arid ctional bridge snow Doi: es on brush. f Leaf tmaa, nsition Denison M Seager, so 1 Sims, Ph g Spence, F Sydnor, R to 1 Sykes, M Jo Thornbur R G USDA. 2 U.S. Glob U P Utah Dep M M Verdolin, of a Walther G G 4 Wasser, D F Waugh, E th D R Waugh, W 2 ines Corp. R. and G. V outhwestern 07:21277-21 hillip and J. rasslands. J L. E. 1937. orestry 35:7 Russell S. a opsoil treatm 786. M. T. 2009. C ohn Wiley & rg, Ashley A. Regions. US Government P 2009. http://p bal Change United States Press. partment of Mines (USA) March. J., K. Lewis f Gunnison’s nd Utah (C. G., E. Post, Guldberg, and 16:389–395. Clinton H. Disturbed Lan WS/OBS-82 W.J. 2010. Evaluation of he Workshop Decommissio Regulatory Co W. J., M. K. 008. Monito Vecchi. 201 North Am 1282. S. Singh. 1 J. of Ecology Root studi 747-754. nd Edward ents overlyin Climate Cha Sons, Ltd. 1982. Plan SDA. Soil C Printing Offic plants.USDA Research P s. T. R. Karl Environmen Corp’s Whit s and C. Slob s (Cynomy gu parvidens) P P. Convey, d F. Bairlein . 1982. Eco nds in the W 2/56. U.S. Go . A Role fo Earthen Co p on Enginee ning, and U ommission, R Kastens, L. oring the pe 10. Greenh merica. Pro 1978. The s 66:573-597. es of import F. Redente. ng a phytotox nge Impacts nt Materials f Conservation ce. Washingt A.gov. Acces rogram (USG l, J. M. Meli tal Quality, D te Mesa Rec bodchidoff. 2 unnisoni), W Prairie Dogs. A, Menzel, n. 2002. Ec ology and C West. U.S. overnment P or Natural A vers for Ura ered Barrier P Uranium Mill Rockville, Ma R. L. Shead rformance o D-28 ouse warmin oceedings o structure and . tant range pl 2000. Lon xic growth me s: Vegetation for Use on S n Service. ton, D.C. ssed on July GCRP). 200 illo, and T. C Division of R clamation Pl 2008. Morp White-tailed (C The Southw C. Parmes cological resp Culture of S Departmen Printing Office Analogs in th nium Mill Ta Performance Tailings Fa aryland. er, C. H. Ben of an alternat Updated T ng and the of the Natio d function of lants of the ng-term plan edium. J. En n. In Encyclo Surface-Mine SCS-TP-157 24, 2012. 09. Global Cl C. Peterson Radiation Co lan, Rev. 5.0 hology of bu C. leucurus), western Natu an, T. Beeb ponses to re Selected Spe nt of Interior e. Washingto he Design a ailings. pp. 7 e Related to L acilities, NU nson, W. H. tive landfill c Tailings Cov 21st century onal Acade f ten western Boise River nt community nvironmenta opedia of Life ed Lands in A 7. EPA-600 limate Chang (eds). Cam ontrol (DRC) 0; Interrogat urrow system black-tailed uralist 53:201 bee, J. From ecent climate ecies Useful r. Fish and on, D.C. and Long-Te 7.18 - 7.23 I Low-Level Ra REG/CP-019 Albright, and cover at the er Design R MWH America Augus y hydroclima my of Scie n North Ame watershed. y developme l Quality 29:1 e Sciences ( Arid and Sem 0/7-79-134. ge Impacts i mbridge Univ ), 2012. De tories – Rou ms: A compa (C. ludovicia -207. mentin, O. Ho e change. N l in Revege Wildlife Se erm Perform In Proceedin adioactive W 95, U.S. Nu d P. S. Mush Monticello, Report as, Inc. st 2012 ate of ences erican J. of ent on 1778- ELS). miarid U.S. in the versity ension und 1. arison anus), oegh- Nature etating ervice. mance ngs of Waste, uclear hovic. Utah, Denison M U S Waugh, W u A U Weaver, Weaver, N Westerlin 8 Williams, tr C Wilson, D R Wiscomb S Wyatt, J. st ines Corp. Uranium Mill Symposium. W. J. and K ranium mill t Adjacent Reg U.S. Departm J. E. 1954. J. E. and F. NY. ng, A. L. and 7(Suppleme A., J. Micha ree growth t Century. Eart D. and D. Re Reference (3r b, G. W. and Service, Wildl . W., D. J. D tripmine spo Tailings D Phoenix, AZ . Petersen. tailings repos gions: Impli ment of Energ North Ameri . E. Clement B. P. Bryant nt 1): S231-S aelsen, S. Lea to climate c th Interaction eeder. 2005 rd Edition). J T. A. Mess ife Damage Dollhopf, an ils in southea Disposal Site Z. 1994. Pale sitories. pp. ications for gy, Washingto ican Prairie. ts. 1938. P t. 2008. Clim S249. avitt, and C. hange in th ns 14:1–20. 5. Mammal S John Hopkins mer. 2010. Managemen d W. M. Sc astern Monta D-29 e. Proceed eoclimatic da 163-185 In Environment on, D.C. Johnsen Pu Plant Ecology mate change Still. 2010. e continenta Species of th s University P Pocket Gop nt Series. ww chafer. 1980 ana. J. Rang Updated T dings of the ata applicatio Climate Cha tal Restorat ublishing Com y. 2nd Editio and wildfire Using tree ri al United St he World: A Press. Baltim phers. Utah ww.Extension 0. Root dis ge Managem Tailings Cov e Waste Ma on: long-term ange in the ion and Lan mpany. Linc on. McGraw in California. ings to predic tates during At Taxonomic more, MD. h State Coop n.USU.edu stribution in ment 33:101-1 er Design R MWH America Augus anagement m performan Four corners nd Use Plan coln, NE. w-Hill. New . Climatic Ch ct the respon the Twenty c and Geogr perative Exte 1 to 48 yea 104. Report as, Inc. st 2012 2008 nce of s and nning. York, hange nse of y-First raphic ension ar old MILL SITE TAILINGS AND PROCESS SOLUTIONS CELLS 1 2 3 4A4B LOCATION OF 2012 PLANT COVER SURVEY TRANSECTS FIGURE D.1 1009740 TRANS WHITE MESA MILL RECLAMATION AUG 2012 LEGEND MILL SITE TAILINGS AND PROCESS SOLUTIONS CELLS 1 2 3 4A4B LOCATION OF 2012 ANIMAL COVER SURVEY TRANSECTS FIGURE D.2 1009740 TRANS WHITE MESA MILL RECLAMATION AUG 2012 LEGEND ATTACHMENT H SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 12/1: REVISED APPENDIX C, RADON EMANATION MODELING, TO THE UPDATED TAILINGS COVER DESIGN REPORT (APPENDIX D OF RECLAMATION PLAN, REVISION 5.0) Updated Tailings Cover Design Report APPENDIX C RADON EMANATION MODELING Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc. C-1 August 2012 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), as well as an update to Appendix C of MWH (2011). 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 and 2012. 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 or topsoil) • 3.5 ft (107 cm) Water Storage/Biointrusion/Frost Protection/Radon Attenuation Layer (loam to sandy clay) • 3.6 to 4.7 ft (110 to143 cm) Radon Attenuation Layer (highly compacted loam to sandy clay) • 2.5 ft (76 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. Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc. C-2 August 2012 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 values for the tailings in the impoundments are estimated based on material inventory data provided by Denison. A summary of the material inventories for Cells 2 and 3 and the projected inventory for Cells 4A and 4B is provided in Attachment C.1. The radium-226 and thorium-230 activity concentrations are listed for each material in the inventories. These values were used to calculate a weighted average for radium-226 and thorium-230 activity concentrations for the tailings using the volume of material placed in Cells 2 and 3. In addition, these values were used to project radium-226 and thorium-230 activity concentrations for the materials to be placed in Cells 4A and 4B. Calculations for radium-226 from decay of thorium-230 were also made. These calculations are also provided in Attachment C.1. The results for Cell 3 and Cells 4A and 4B indicate the highest radium-226 values are a result of original radium-226 and radium-226 from thorium-230 decay at approximately 1000 years. The results are summarized below and in Table C.1. Table C.1. Radium Activity Concentrations Tailings Cell Weighted Average Radium-226 Activity Concentration (pCi/g) Weighted Average Thorium-230 Activity Concentration (pCi/g) Total Radium-226 Activity Concentration (original radium-226 and radium- 226 from thorium-230 decay) (pCi/g) Cell 2 923 923 923 Cell 3 606 1048 758 Cells 4A and 4B 617 695 642 Random Fill and Erosion Protection. 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. C.2.3 Radon Emanation Coefficient The radon emanation coefficient used in the model for the tailings is 0.20 based on laboratory data (Rogers & Associates, 1988) and the recommendation in NUREG-1620 (NRC, 2003) to use a value of 0.20 for tailings if there is limited, site-specific data. The radon emanation coefficient used in the model for the cover layers is 0.35. This is the conservative default value used in the RADON model. Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc. C-3 August 2012 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) Placed Density (g/cc) Porosity Erosion Protection* 2.62 85% SP 106 1.7 0.35 Random fill (low compaction water storage, rooting zone) 2.63 85% SP 100 1.6 0.39 Random Fill (high compaction) 2.63 95% SP 112 1.8 0.32 Random Fill (in place, low compaction, platform fill) 2.63 80% SP 94 1.5 0.43 Tailings 2.75 --- 90 1.4 0.47 SP = standard proctor compaction * Estimated by applying a 25% rock correction The specific gravity of the tailings was estimated as 2.75, and the dry density of the tailings was estimated as 90 pcf, based on laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western Colorado Testing, 1999b) and assuming the long-term density of the tailings is at 85 percent of the average laboratory measured maximum dry density. The referenced reports are provided as part of Appendix A.1. The porosity of the tailings was calculated using the estimated specific gravity and dry density based on the following equation: (Eq. C.1) where n = porosity, γd = dry density of soil, Gs = specific gravity of soil, and γw = 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 (ATT, 2010 and UWM, 2011). The referenced reports are provided as part of Appendix A.2. The estimation for the values used in the model is provided in Attachment C.2. The porosity values for the layers were calculated using equation C.1. The proposed cover system has three layers of random fill placed at different levels of compaction. The lower layer of random fill consists of a minimum thickness of 2.5 feet of random fill that is assumed to be dumped and minimally compacted by construction equipment to approximately 80 percent standard Proctor. The middle layer (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. Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc. C-4 August 2012 The 0.5 foot erosion protection layer is assumed to be rock mulch consisting of topsoil material mixed with 25 percent gravel by weight. The specific gravity and density of the erosion protection layer was estimated to be 2.62 and 106 pcf, respectively, based on laboratory testing results for random fill (ATT, 2010 and UWM, 2011) and applying a rock correction based on 25% gravel by weight. C.2.5 Long-term Moisture Content The long-term moisture content value for the tailings is assumed to be 6 percent. This is a conservative assumption, per NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64 (NRC, 1989), which represents the lower bound for moisture in western soils and is typically used as a default value for the long- term water content of tailings. MWH collected representative samples from the on-site random fill and topsoil stockpiles for use in estimating the long-term moisture contents for the random fill and erosion protection cover layers. The laboratory results for the 15 bar water contents for these samples were used to estimate long-term water contents for the random fill and erosion protection layers. The long-term water content of the topsoil was estimated as 5.2 percent based on the measured 15 bar gravimetric water content for a topsoil sample (E1-A) which represents the average index properties for the topsoil stockpiles. The long-term water content of the rock mulch was estimated as 4 percent based on the addition of 25 percent gravel by weight to the topsoil. Based on the cover material gradations, the cover soils were bracketed into three groups, finer grained soils, uniform graded soils, and broadly graded soils. A weighted average procedure that accounts for the size of soil type based on the stockpile volumes was incorporated to determine the average long-term gravimetric water content for the random fill using the measured 15 bar water contents. The estimation of the long-term water content value for the cover material is provided in Attachment C.2. The average long-term moisture contents are summarized in Table C.3. Table C.3. Estimated Long-Term Moisture Contents Material Gravimetric Water Content (%) Erosion Protection (rock mulch) 4.0 Erosion Protection (topsoil) 5.2 Random fill 6.7 Tailings 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 Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc. C-5 August 2012 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. Table C.4. Calculated Radon Diffusion Coefficients Material Diffusion Coefficient (cm2/s) Erosion Protection (rock mulch) 0.0354 Erosion Protection (topsoil) 0.0330 Random Fill (low compaction water storage, rooting zone) 0.0274 Random Fill (high compaction) 0.0176 Random Fill (in place, low compaction, platform fill) 0.0326 Tailings 0.0401 C.3 MODEL RESULTS The radon emanation modeling results show that the designed cover systems presented in Table C.5 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.3. Table C.5. Summary of Results Cover Layer Cover Thickness (ft) Cell 2 Cell 3 Cells 4A/4B Erosion Protection (rock mulch or topsoil) 0.5 0.5 0.5 Random Fill (low compaction water storage, rooting zone) 3.5 3.5 3.5 Random Fill (high compaction) 4.7 4.0 3.6 Random Fill (in place, low compaction, platform fill) 2.5 2.5 2.5 Total Cover Thickness 11.2 10.5 10.1 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 to limit the radon emanation rate through the top of the cover to 20 pCi/m2-s. This modeling indicates that for every extra foot of low-compaction random fill (80% standard Proctor compaction), the highly compacted random fill layer (95% standard Proctor compaction) can be reduced in thickness by 0.70 ft. This trend is shown in Figure C.1. The RADON model output is provided in Attachment C.4. Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc. C-6 August 2012 C.5 REFERENCES Advanced Terra Testing (ATT), 2010. Denison White Mesa Project, Job No. 2521-53, Laboratory Testing for Borrow Stockpiles. October. 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. MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH), 2011. Updated Tailings Cover Design. Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. September. 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. University of Wisconsin-Madison (UWM), Wisconsin Geotechnics Laboratory, 2012. Compaction and Hydraulic Properties of Soils from Banding, Utah. Geotechnics Report NO. 12-41 by C.H. Benson and X. Wang. July 24. Denison Mines Corp. MWH Americas, Inc. C-7 August 2012 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. PROJECT RADON EMANATION INCREASED THICKNESS OF LOWER RANDOM FILL VS TOTAL COVER THICKNESS TITLE DATE FILENAME FIGURE C.1 White Mesa Mill Reclamation AUG 2012 Summary of Radon Runs_8‐7‐2012pptxDenison Mines (USA) Corp y = 0.3257x + 10.319 y = ‐0.6743x + 6.3167 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Re q u i r e d Th i c k n e s s (f t ) Thickness of Lower Random Fill (ft) Total cover thickness Highly Compacted Random Fill Layer (compacted to 95% standard Proctor compaction) ATTACHMENT C.1 RADIUM-226 ESTIMATION TABLES Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Mill Site, Summary of Processed Ores and Alternate Feeds Material Category/Location Origin/ Description Dates Total Mass Ores Processed (tons) %U3O8 Ra-226 Activity Conc.a (pCi/g) Th-230 Activity Conc.b (pCi/g) Reference/Comments Processed Ores Natural Ores Arizona Strip Ores 1980 - 2000 1,000,000 0.55 1546.6 1546.6 Total quantity for both ores from Denison (2009, 2011), ore grades and quantity breakdown from Roberts (2012b) Colorado Plateau Ores 1980 - 2000 2,840,536 0.25 703.0 703.0 Total quantity for both ores from Denison (2009, 2011), ore grades and quantity breakdown from Roberts (2012b) Pandora 2008-2011 231,191 0.218 613.0 613.0 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Daneros 2010-2011 71,287 0.269 756.4 756.4 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Beaver 2010-2011 90,280 0.174 489.3 489.3 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Arizona 1 2010-2011 41,863 0.608 1709.7 1709.7 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Sunday 2008-2011 20,251 0.178 500.5 500.5 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) West Sunday 2008-2010 79,744 0.157 441.5 441.5 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Topaz 2008-2010 16,869 0.128 359.9 359.9 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) St. Jude 2008-2010 29,572 0.167 469.6 469.6 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Tony M 2008-2009 189,876 0.131 368.4 368.4 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Dawn Mining 2009-2010 2,875 0.456 1282.3 1282.3 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Carnation 2009-2010 5,584 0.166 466.8 466.8 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Purchased Ore 2010-2011 18,008 0.146 410.6 410.6 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Humbug Cressler 2011 118 0.044 123.7 123.7 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Alternate Feeds Linde Soil 1996-1999, 2002-2003, 2007 258,992 33 133 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Ashland 1 Soil 1996-1999, 2002-2003 317,831 91.3 1849 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities and activities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Heritage Monazite sands 1996-1999, 2002-2003, 2007 7,374 19.4 10.6 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cabot Tantalum residues 1996-1999 16,828 772 118 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Ashland 2 Soil 1996-1999 43,981 91.3 1849 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities and activities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Cameco KF product 1996-1999 1,966 0.6 5.3 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Allied Signal/Honeywell Calcium Fluoride 1996-1997 2,343 989 23800 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cameco Phosph. regen. product 1996-1999 557 2.70 2.10 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cameco Calcined product 1996-1999 2,197 1040 9170 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Allied Signal KOH solution recovery 1996-1999 1,526 989 0.00 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Harold (2012a) and Turk (2012b). Rhone-Poulenc Uranyl nitrate hexahydrate 1996-1997 17 156 2550 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Harold (2012a) and Turk (2012b). Cameco UF4 with filter ash 1996-1999 10 156 2550 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Nev. Test Site Cotter Concentrate 1996-1997 420 3590 585000 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities and activities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Molycorp 2002-2003, 2007 11,689 38.6 268.0 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cabot Tantalum residues 2011 8,700 772 118 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cameco UF4 2009-2010 462 156 2550 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Allied Signal/Honeywell Calcium Fluoride 2011 1,969 989 23800 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). FMRI (Fansteel)2011 1,369 236 4.9 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Notes: aValues for ores estimated using method in NRC Reg. Guide 3.64 (1989) of multiplying the ore grade by 2812 pCi/g. bValues for thorium estimated as Ra-226 values. References: Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0, November. Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 5.0, September. Roberts, H., 2012a. Electronic communication including files "InvThNov00.xls and Inventory Umass in tails.xls" from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., July 20. Roberts, H., 2012b. Personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 21. Roberts, H., 2012c. Electronic communication including file "Alternate Feed Tons.pdf" and personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., July 24. Turk, D., 2012a. Electronic communication including file "Ore Numbers.pdf" from David Turk, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 8. Turk, D., 2012b. Electronic communication including file "DAC s Calculations 2012_rev6-29-12" from David Turk, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 29. Impoundment Inventory Summary_7Aug2012_MWH:Inventory Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Estimation of Cell 2 Ra-226 and Th-230 Activity Concentrations for Tailings Material Category/Location Origin/ Description Dates Total Mass Ores Processed (tons) Total Mass Ore Processed for Cell 2a (tons)%U3O8 Ra-226 Activity Conc.b (pCi/g) Th-230 Activity Conc.c (pCi/g) Reference/Comments Processed Ores Arizona Strip Ores 1980 - 2000 1,000,000 598,875 0.55 1547 1547 Total quantity for both ores from Denison (2009, 2011), ore grades and quantity breakdown from Roberts (2012b) Colorado Plateau Ores 1980 - 2000 2,840,536 1,701,125 0.25 703 703 Total quantity for both ores from Denison (2009, 2011), ore grades and quantity breakdown from Roberts (2012b) Total Tons 2,300,000 Weighted Ave.923 923 Notes:cEstimated from total tons of tailings to Cell 2 from Denison (2009), Attachment E. Estimated mass is for ore processed. Material placed in Cell 2 are only those listed in the table (Roberts, 2012c). bValues for ores estimated using method in NRC Reg. Guide 3.64 (1989) of multiplying the ore grade by 2812 pCi/g. cValues for thorium estimated as Ra-226 values. References: Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0, November. Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 5.0, September. Roberts, H., 2012b. Personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 21. Roberts, H., 2012c. Electronic communication including file "Alternate Feed Tons.pdf" and personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., July 24. Natural Ores Impoundment Inventory Summary_7Aug2012_MWH:Cell 2 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Estimation of Cell 3 Ra-226 and Th-230 Activity Concentrations for Tailings Material Category/Location Origin/ Description Dates Total Mass Ores Processed (tons) Total Mass Ore Processed for Cell 3a (tons)%U3O8 Ra-226 Activity Conc.a (pCi/g) Th-230 Activity Conc.b (pCi/g) Reference/Comments Processed Ores Natural Ores Arizona Strip Ores 1980 - 2000 1,000,000 401,125 0.55 1546.6 253.15 1546.6 253.15 Total quantity for both ores from Denison (2009, 2011), ore grades and quantity breakdown from Roberts (2012b) Colorado Plateau Ores 1980 - 2000 2,840,536 1,139,411 0.25 703.0 326.85 703.0 326.85 Total quantity for both ores from Denison (2009, 2011), ore grades and quantity breakdown from Roberts (2012b) Pandora 2008 80,046 80,046 0.218 613.0 20.02 613.02 20.02 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Sunday 2008 12,066 12,066 0.178 500.5 2.46 500.54 2.46 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) West Sunday 2008 53,613 53,613 0.157 441.5 9.66 441.48 9.66 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Topaz 2008 8,746 8,746 0.128 359.9 1.28 359.94 1.28 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) St. Jude 2008 15,140 15,140 0.167 469.6 2.90 469.60 2.90 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Tony M 2008 74,802 74,802 0.131 368.4 11.24 368.37 11.24 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Alternate Feeds Linde Soil 1996-1999, 2002-2003, 2007 258,992 258,992 33 3.49 133 14.06 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Ashland 1 Soil 1996-1999, 2002-2003 317,831 317,831 91.3 11.84 1849 239.80 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities and activities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Heritage Monazite sands 1996-1999, 2002-2003, 2007 7,374 7,374 19.4 0.06 10.6 0.03 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cabot Tantalum residues 1996-1999 16,828 16,828 772 5.30 118 0.81 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Ashland 2 Soil 1996-1999 43,981 43,981 91.3 1.64 1849 33.18 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities and activities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Cameco KF product 1996-1999 1,966 1,966 0.6 0.00 5.3 0.00 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Allied Signal/Honeywell Calcium Fluoride 1996-1997 2,343 2,343 989 0.95 23800 22.75 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cameco Phosph. regen. product 1996-1999 557 557 2.70 0.00 2.10 0.00 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cameco Calcined product 1996-1999 2,197 2,197 1040 0.93 9170 8.22 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Allied Signal KOH solution recovery 1996-1999 1,526 1,526 989 0.62 0.00 0.00 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Harold (2012a) and Turk (2012b). Rhone-Poulenc Uranyl nitrate hexahydrate 1996-1997 17 17 156 0.00 2550 0.02 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Harold (2012a) and Turk (2012b). Cameco UF4 with filter ash 1996-1999 10 10 156 0.00 2550 0.01 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Nev. Test Site Cotter Concentrate 1996-1997 420 420 3590 0.62 585000 100.26 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities and activities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Molycorp 2002-2003, 2007 11,689 11,689 38.6 0.18 268.0 1.28 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Total Tons 2,450,679 Weighted Ave.606 1048 Notes: cEstimated from total tons of tailings to Cell 2 and capacity of Cell 3 from Denison (2009), Attachment E. Material placed before 2009 was placed in Cells 2 and 3 (Roberts, 2012c). bValues for ores estimated using method in NRC Reg. Guide 3.64 (1989) of multiplying the ore grade by 2812 pCi/g. cValues for thorium estimated as Ra-226 values. References: Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0, November. Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 5.0, September. Roberts, H., 2012a. Electronic communication including files "InvThNov00.xls and Inventory Umass in tails.xls" from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., July 20. Roberts, H., 2012b. Personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 21. Roberts, H., 2012c. Electronic communication including file "Alternate Feed Tons.pdf" and personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., July 24. Turk, D., 2012a. Electronic communication including file "Ore Numbers.pdf" from David Turk, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 8. Turk, D., 2012b. Electronic communication including file "DAC s Calculations 2012_rev6-29-12" from David Turk, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 29. Impoundment Inventory Summary_7Aug2012_MWH:Cell 3 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Estimation of Cell 4A and 4B Ra-226 and Th-230 Activity Concentrations for Tailings Material Category/Location Origin/ Description Dates Total Mass Ore/Alt. Feed Processeda (tons)%U3O8 Ra-226 Activity Conc.b (pCi/g) Th-230 Activity Conc.c (pCi/g) Reference/Comments Processed Ores Pandora 2009-2011 151,145 0.218 613.0 613.0 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Daneros 2010-2011 71,287 0.269 756.4 756.4 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Beaver 2010-2011 90,280 0.174 489.3 489.3 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Arizona 1 2010-2011 41,863 0.608 1709.7 1709.7 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Sunday 2009-2011 8,185 0.178 500.5 500.5 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) West Sunday 2009-2010 26,131 0.157 441.5 441.5 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Topaz 2009-2010 8,123 0.128 359.9 359.9 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) St. Jude 2009-2010 14,432 0.167 469.6 469.6 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Tony M 2009 115,074 0.131 368.4 368.4 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Dawn Mining 2009-2010 2,875 0.456 1282.3 1282.3 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Carnation 2009-2010 5,584 0.166 466.8 466.8 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Purchased Ore 2010-2011 18,008 0.146 410.6 410.6 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Humbug Cressler 2011 118 0.044 123.7 123.7 Data provided from D. Turk (2012a) Alternate Feeds Cabot Tantalum residues 2011 8,700 772 118 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Cameco UF4 2009-2010 462 156 2550 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Allied Signal/Honeywell Calcium Fluoride 2011 1,969 989 23800 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). FMRI (Fansteel)2011 1,369 236 4.9 Date range est. from Denison (2011) and Roberts (2012c). Quantities est. from Roberts (2012a,2012c). Activities est. from Turk (2012b). Weighted Ave. 617 695 Notes: cCurrent tailings in Cell 4A and future tailings to Cell 4A and 4B are projected to be from ores and alternative feeds similar to those processed after 2008 (Roberts, 2012c). bValues for ores estimated using method in NRC Reg. Guide 3.64 (1989) of multiplying the ore grade by 2812 pCi/g. cValues for thorium estimated as Ra-226 values. References: Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 4.0, November. Denison Mines USA Corporation (Denison), 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding Utah, Revision 5.0, September. Roberts, H., 2012a. Electronic communication including files "InvThNov00.xls and Inventory Umass in tails.xls" from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., July 20. Roberts, H., 2012b. Personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 21. Roberts, H., 2012c. Electronic communication including file "Alternate Feed Tons.pdf" and personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., July 24. Turk, D., 2012a. Electronic communication including file "Ore Numbers.pdf" from David Turk, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 8. Turk, D., 2012b. Electronic communication including file "DAC s Calculations 2012_rev6-29-12" from David Turk, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., June 29. Impoundment Inventory Summary_7Aug2012_MWH:Cells 4A-B Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Mill Tailings Cell 2 Calculation of Ra-226 Concentrations Due to Future Decay of Th-230 The RA-226 concentration at various times in the future depends on both the decay of the Ra-226 currently present and the ingrowth from Th-230. The Ra-226 decays with a half-life of 1602 years. The ingrowth is also a function of the Ra-226 half-life (1602 years) and the Th-230 half-life (77,000 years). A (Ra-226) at a time t (years) = [A (Ra-226) at t=0][exp(-0.693t/1602 years)] A (Ra-226 from decay of Th-230 at time t (years)) = [A (Th-230)][1-exp(-0.693t/1602 years)][exp(-0.693t/77,000 years)] Residual Ra-226 at time t Time exp (-0.693t/1602) Initial Ra-226 Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 Concentration at time t (pCi/g) (years) Cell 2 Cell 2 0 1.000 923 923 100 0.958 923 884 200 0.917 923 847 500 0.805 923 743 1000 0.649 923 599 Ra-226 Concentration from Ingrowth Due to Decay of Th-230 Time exp (-0.693t/1602) Initial Th-230 Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 Concentration at time t (pCi/g) exp (-0.693t/77000) (years) S.I.S.I. 0 1.000 923 0 1.000 100 0.958 923 39 0.999 200 0.917 923 76 0.998 500 0.805 923 179 0.996 1000 0.649 923 321 0.991 Total Ra-226 Concentration at Time t (original Ra-226 and Ra-226 from Th-230 decay) Time Total Ra-226 Concentration (pCi/g) (years) avg. S.I. 0 923 100 923 200 923 500 922 1000 920 Ra-226 Ingrowth Calcs_MWH:Ra-226 Ingrowth (Cell 2)8/10/2012 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Mill Tailings Cell 3 Calculation of Ra-226 Concentrations Due to Future Decay of Th-230 The RA-226 concentration at various times in the future depends on both the decay of the Ra-226 currently present and the ingrowth from Th-230. The Ra-226 decays with a half-life of 1602 years. The ingrowth is also a function of the Ra-226 half-life (1602 years) and the Th-230 half-life (77,000 years). A (Ra-226) at a time t (years) = [A (Ra-226) at t=0][exp(-0.693t/1602 years)] A (Ra-226 from decay of Th-230 at time t (years)) = [A (Th-230)][1-exp(-0.693t/1602 years)][exp(-0.693t/77,000 years)] Residual Ra-226 at time t Time exp (-0.693t/1602) Initial Ra-226 Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 Concentration at time t (pCi/g) (years) Cell 3 Cell 3 0 1.000 606 606 100 0.958 606 580 200 0.917 606 556 500 0.805 606 488 1000 0.649 606 393 Ra-226 Concentration from Ingrowth Due to Decay of Th-230 Time exp (-0.693t/1602) Initial Th-230 Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 Concentration at time t (pCi/g) exp (-0.693t/77000) (years) S.I.S.I. 0 1.000 1048 0 1.000 100 0.958 1048 44 0.999 200 0.917 1048 87 0.998 500 0.805 1048 203 0.996 1000 0.649 1048 365 0.991 Total Ra-226 Concentration at Time t (original Ra-226 and Ra-226 from Th-230 decay) Time Total Ra-226 Concentration (pCi/g) (years) avg. S.I. 0 606 100 625 200 642 500 691 1000 758 Ra-226 Ingrowth Calcs_MWH:Ra-226 Ingrowth (Cell 3)8/10/2012 Denison Mines (USA) Corp. White Mesa Mill Tailings Cells 4A/B Calculation of Ra-226 Concentrations Due to Future Decay of Th-230 The RA-226 concentration at various times in the future depends on both the decay of the Ra-226 currently present and the ingrowth from Th-230. The Ra-226 decays with a half-life of 1602 years. The ingrowth is also a function of the Ra-226 half-life (1602 years) and the Th-230 half-life (77,000 years). A (Ra-226) at a time t (years) = [A (Ra-226) at t=0][exp(-0.693t/1602 years)] A (Ra-226 from decay of Th-230 at time t (years)) = [A (Th-230)][1-exp(-0.693t/1602 years)][exp(-0.693t/77,000 years)] Residual Ra-226 at time t Time exp (-0.693t/1602) Initial Ra-226 Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 Concentration at time t (pCi/g) (years) Cell 4A/B Cell 4A/B 0 1.000 617 617 100 0.958 617 591 200 0.917 617 566 500 0.805 617 497 1000 0.649 617 400 Ra-226 Concentration from Ingrowth Due to Decay of Th-230 Time exp (-0.693t/1602) Initial Th-230 Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 Concentration at time t (pCi/g) exp (-0.693t/77000) (years) S.I.S.I. 0 1.000 695 0 1.000 100 0.958 695 29 0.999 200 0.917 695 57 0.998 500 0.805 695 135 0.996 1000 0.649 695 242 0.991 Total Ra-226 Concentration at Time t (original Ra-226 and Ra-226 from Th-230 decay) Time Total Ra-226 Concentration (pCi/g) (years) avg. S.I. 0 617 100 620 200 623 500 632 1000 642 Ra-226 Ingrowth Calcs_MWH:Ra-226 Ingrowth (Cells 4A-B)8/10/2012 ATTACHMENT C.2 COVER MATERIAL PARAMETERS ESTIMATION TABLE DENISON MINES WHITE MESA MILL Summary of Laboratory Testing Results for Borrow Stockpiles Borrow Stockpile ID Estimated Stockpile Volume1 (cy) Field Investigation Date Material Description USCS Sample ID Sample Depth (ft) Gravimetric Water Content (%) Atterberg Limits2 LL/PL/PI (%) PI Specific Gravity % Gravel %Sand %Silt % Clay Max. Density (pcf) Opt. Moist. Cont. (%) Ksat (cm/s) 15bar Grav. Water Content (%) Soil Group4 E1 15,900 Apr‐2012 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML E1‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐23/18/5 5 2.61 0 41 43 16 118 11 1.3 x 10‐4 5.2 Topsoil SM A 5 4.5 NP NP ‐‐0.5 77.1 13.5 8.9 B SC B 12 5.7 23.3/11.2/12.1 12.1 2.64 13.1 50.3 22.6 14.0 U E3 16,800 Apr‐2012 Clay with Sand CH E3‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐54/24/30 30 2.53 0 23 29 48 105 19 9.5 x 10‐5 13.6 F E4 66,600 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 5 8.6 30.3/14.4/15.9 15.9 ‐‐0.0 41.2 39.1 19.7 U Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 6 9.0 33.2/14.3/18.9 18.9 ‐‐0.0 35.5 38.1 26.4 F Apr‐2012 Clay with Sand CH E5‐B0 ‐ 3 ‐‐51/24/27 27 2.56 2 15 36 47 F E6 100,700 Oct‐2010 Clay CL A 5 14.4 40.2/15.8/24.4 24.4 2.74 0.1 17.7 49.5 32.7 F E7 74,900 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 6 5.7 26.2/16.3/9.9 9.9 ‐‐0.0 30.2 56.1 13.7 U Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 2 7.4 23.0/12.0/11.0 11.0 ‐‐0.0 47.0 36.9 16.1 U Apr‐2012 Gravel with Clay and Sand GW‐GC E8‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐27/16/11 11 2.63 40.0 31.0 18.0 11.0 125 11 6.0 B W1 85,700 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 5 8.8 32.1/14.5/17.6 17.6 ‐‐0.0 40.6 37.6 21.8 U Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A surface 8.5 28.1/13.1/15.0 15.0 ‐‐0.2 41.5 42.5 15.8 U Apr‐2012 Clayey Sand with Gravel SC W2‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐24/14/10 10 2.62 30 45 15.0 10.0 6.9 B Apr‐2012 Silty Clayey Sand with Gravel SC‐SM W2‐B0 ‐ 5 ‐‐18/13/5 5 2.63 41 45 9.0 5.0 128 9 1.5 x 10‐3 3.5 B W3 84,800 Oct‐2010 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML A surface 4.3 20.9/16.2/4.7 4.7 ‐‐0.2 44.2 39.2 16.4 Topsoil Oct‐2010 Topsoil (Sandy Silt) ML A 5 5.3 21.9/18.0/3.9 3.9 ‐‐0.0 32.6 54.3 13.1 Topsoil Apr‐2012 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML W4‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐26/19/7 7 2.60 0 38 44 18 Topsoil Sandy Clay CL W5‐A0 ‐ 4 ‐‐27/18/9 9 2.61 1 49 32 18 7.0 U Clayey Sand with Gravel SC W5‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐24/15/9 9 2.63 29 44 19 8 122 10 1.1 x 10‐3 3.6 B W6 93,400 Oct‐2010 Topsoil (Sandy Silty Clay) CL‐ML A surface 3.3 23.1/16.5/6.6 6.6 ‐‐0.0 34.3 51.8 13.9 Topsoil W7 39,500 Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A 5 8.7 28.0/10.6/17.3 17.3 2.67 0.0 43.8 43.1 13.1 U Silty Sand with Gravel SM W8‐A0 ‐ 3 ‐‐NP NP 2.64 35 51 9 5 117 13 1.2 x 10‐3 5.0 B Silty Sand with Gravel SM W8‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐NP NP 2.66 32 40 18 10 6.4 B Oct‐2010 Sandy Clay CL A surface 4.4 25.9/12.3/13.5 13.5 ‐‐0.0 37.4 45.2 17.4 U Apr‐2012 Sandy Clay CL W9‐B0 ‐ 4 ‐‐28/16/12 12 2.63 6 44 35 15 115 14 4.1 x 10‐4 7.7 U Notes: 1. Volumes estimated using 2009 topography and assuming a relatively flat bottom surface, except for stockpiles W5, W8 and W9. The volumes for stockpiles W8 and W9 were estimated by comparing the 2011 versus 2009 topography. The volume for stockpile W5 was estimated using a combination of both methods. 2. LL = Liquid Limt, 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 4. Group B (broadly graded), Group U (uniformly graded), and Group F (fine textured) based on evaluation of gradations and Benson (2012)*. See Appendix A.2 for gradations. *Benson, C., 2012. Electronic communication from Craig Benson, University of Wisconsin‐Madison, to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., regarding evaluation of gradations performed for potential cover soils for White Mesa, May 20. Estimation of Cover Material Properties Used in Model Soil Group4 Volume (cy) Total Vol (cy) Percent of Total Volume Ave. Max. Dry Density (pcf) Ave. Specific Gravity Ave. 15bar Grav. Water Content (%) Group B 1,728,308 3,596,621 48.1% 123 2.64 5.2 Group U 1,682,013 3,596,621 46.8% 115 2.64 7.3 Group F 186,300 3,596,621 5.2% 105 2.61 13.6 118 2.63 6.7Weighted Ave. W9 60,250 W5 2,001,160 Apr‐2012 W8 178,411 Apr‐2012 E8 227,300 W2 584,500 W4 90,000 E2 92,000 Oct‐2010 Silty Sand/Clayey Sand E5 68,800 White Mesa_2010 and 2012 lab results_8‐6‐12.xlsx:Cover Mat Props in Model ATTACHMENT C.3 RADON MODEL OUTPUT -----*****! RADON !*****----- Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# (301)492-7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS OUTPUT FILE: Cell2_modeloutput DESCRIPTION: Radon model output for cell 2 to determine layer thickness 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 .01 pCi m^-2 s^-1 LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS LAYER 1 Tailings THICKNESS 500 cm CALCULATED POROSITY 0.472 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.4 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 923 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .2 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 1.151D-03 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .178 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0404 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 2 Lower Random Fill (80% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 76 cm POROSITY .43 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .234 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0322 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 3 Random Fill (95%SP Compaction) THICKNESS 1 cm POROSITY .32 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.8 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .377 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0176 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 4 ET Layer (85% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 107 cm POROSITY .39 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .275 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0275 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 5 Topsoil THICKNESS 15 cm POROSITY .35 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.7 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 4 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .194 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0351 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-02 LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO 1 5.000D+02 4.040D-02 4.717D-01 1.151D-03 1.781D-01 1.400 2 7.600D+01 3.220D-02 4.300D-01 0.000D+00 2.337D-01 1.500 3 1.000D+00 1.760D-02 3.200D-01 0.000D+00 3.769D-01 1.800 4 1.070D+02 2.750D-02 3.900D-01 0.000D+00 2.749D-01 1.600 5 1.500D+01 3.510D-02 3.500D-01 0.000D+00 1.943D-01 1.700 BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 7.318D+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 2.847D+02 3.259D+05 2 7.600D+01 1.133D+02 2.045D+05 3 1.429D+02 3.201D+01 2.407D+04 4 1.070D+02 2.021D+01 2.285D+03 5 1.500D+01 2.007D+01 0.000D+00 -----*****! RADON !*****----- Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# (301)492-7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS OUTPUT FILE: Cell3_modeloutput DESCRIPTION: Radon model output for cell 3 to determine layer thickness 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 .01 pCi m^-2 s^-1 LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS LAYER 1 Tailings THICKNESS 500 cm POROSITY .47 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.4 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 758 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .2 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 9.483D-04 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .179 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 4.008D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 2 Lower Random Fill (80% SP compaction) THICKNESS 76 cm POROSITY .43 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .234 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 3.258D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 3 Random Fill (95% SP compaction) THICKNESS 1 cm POROSITY .32 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.8 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .377 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.755D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 4 ET Layer (random fill at 85% SP compaction) THICKNESS 107 cm POROSITY .39 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .275 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.738D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 5 Topsoil THICKNESS 15 cm POROSITY .38 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .38 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 5.2 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .219 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 3.302D-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-02 LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO 1 5.000D+02 4.008D-02 4.700D-01 9.483D-04 1.787D-01 1.400 2 7.600D+01 3.258D-02 4.300D-01 0.000D+00 2.337D-01 1.500 3 1.000D+00 1.755D-02 3.200D-01 0.000D+00 3.769D-01 1.800 4 1.070D+02 2.738D-02 3.900D-01 0.000D+00 2.749D-01 1.600 5 1.500D+01 3.302D-02 3.800D-01 0.000D+00 2.189D-01 1.600 BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 5.988D+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 2.351D+02 2.672D+05 2 7.600D+01 9.438D+01 1.680D+05 3 1.247D+02 3.220D+01 2.428D+04 4 1.070D+02 2.030D+01 2.295D+03 5 1.500D+01 2.015D+01 0.000D+00 -----*****! RADON !*****----- Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# (301)492-7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS OUTPUT FILE: Cells4AB_modeloutput DESCRIPTION: Radon model output for cells 4A and 4B 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 .01 pCi m^-2 s^-1 LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS LAYER 1 Tailings THICKNESS 500 cm POROSITY .47 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.4 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 642 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .2 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 8.032D-04 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .179 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 4.008D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 2 Lower Random Fill (80% SP compaction) THICKNESS 76 cm POROSITY .43 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .234 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 3.258D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 3 Random Fill (95% SP compaction) THICKNESS 1 cm POROSITY .32 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.8 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .377 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 1.755D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 4 ET Layer (random fill at 85% SP compaction) THICKNESS 107 cm POROSITY .39 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .275 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 2.738D-02 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 5 Rock Mulch THICKNESS 15 cm POROSITY .35 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.7 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 4 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .194 CALCULATED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT 3.536D-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-02 LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO 1 5.000D+02 4.008D-02 4.700D-01 8.032D-04 1.787D-01 1.400 2 7.600D+01 3.258D-02 4.300D-01 0.000D+00 2.337D-01 1.500 3 1.000D+00 1.755D-02 3.200D-01 0.000D+00 3.769D-01 1.800 4 1.070D+02 2.738D-02 3.900D-01 0.000D+00 2.749D-01 1.600 5 1.500D+01 3.536D-02 3.500D-01 0.000D+00 1.943D-01 1.700 BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 5.072D+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 1.997D+02 2.259D+05 2 7.600D+01 8.091D+01 1.414D+05 3 1.102D+02 3.207D+01 2.417D+04 4 1.070D+02 2.023D+01 2.271D+03 5 1.500D+01 2.009D+01 0.000D+00 ATTACHMENT C.4 RADON MODEL OUTPUT FOR VARIABLE THICKNESS OF RANDOM FILL -----*****! RADON !*****----- Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# (301)492-7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS OUTPUT FILE: Cell2_Layer3thicknessredux1 DESCRIPTION: White Mesa Mill Cell 2 95% Random Fill thickness reduction point 1 on figure C.1 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 .01 pCi m^-2 s^-1 LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS LAYER 1 Tailings THICKNESS 500 cm CALCULATED POROSITY 0.472 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.4 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 923 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .2 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 1.151D-03 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .178 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0404 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 2 Lower Random Fill (80% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 76 cm POROSITY .43 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .234 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0322 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 3 Random Fill (95%SP Compaction) THICKNESS 1 cm POROSITY .32 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.8 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .377 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0176 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 4 ET Layer (85% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 107 cm POROSITY .39 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .275 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0275 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 5 Topsoil THICKNESS 15 cm POROSITY .35 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.7 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 4 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .194 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0351 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-02 LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO 1 5.000D+02 4.040D-02 4.717D-01 1.151D-03 1.781D-01 1.400 2 7.600D+01 3.220D-02 4.300D-01 0.000D+00 2.337D-01 1.500 3 1.000D+00 1.760D-02 3.200D-01 0.000D+00 3.769D-01 1.800 4 1.070D+02 2.750D-02 3.900D-01 0.000D+00 2.749D-01 1.600 5 1.500D+01 3.510D-02 3.500D-01 0.000D+00 1.943D-01 1.700 BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 7.318D+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 2.847D+02 3.259D+05 2 7.600D+01 1.133D+02 2.045D+05 3 1.429D+02 3.201D+01 2.407D+04 4 1.070D+02 2.021D+01 2.285D+03 5 1.500D+01 2.007D+01 0.000D+00 -----*****! RADON !*****----- Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# (301)492-7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS OUTPUT FILE: Cell2_Layer3thicknessredux2 DESCRIPTION: White Mesa Mill Cell 2 95% Random Fill thickness reduction point 2 on figure C.1 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 .01 pCi m^-2 s^-1 LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS LAYER 1 Tailings THICKNESS 500 cm POROSITY .47 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.4 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 923 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .2 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 1.155D-03 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .179 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0404 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 2 Lower Random Fill (80% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 106.68 cm POROSITY .43 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .234 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0322 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 3 Random Fill (95% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 1 cm POROSITY .32 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.8 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .377 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0176 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 4 ET Layer (85% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 107 cm POROSITY .39 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .275 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0275 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 5 Topsoil THICKNESS 15 cm POROSITY .35 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.7 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 4 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .194 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0351 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-02 LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO 1 5.000D+02 4.040D-02 4.700D-01 1.155D-03 1.787D-01 1.400 2 1.067D+02 3.220D-02 4.300D-01 0.000D+00 2.337D-01 1.500 3 1.000D+00 1.760D-02 3.200D-01 0.000D+00 3.769D-01 1.800 4 1.070D+02 2.750D-02 3.900D-01 0.000D+00 2.749D-01 1.600 5 1.500D+01 3.510D-02 3.500D-01 0.000D+00 1.943D-01 1.700 BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 7.318D+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 2.996D+02 3.162D+05 2 1.067D+02 9.029D+01 1.598D+05 3 1.212D+02 3.202D+01 2.408D+04 4 1.070D+02 2.021D+01 2.286D+03 5 1.500D+01 2.008D+01 0.000D+00 -----*****! RADON !*****----- Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# (301)492-7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS OUTPUT FILE: Cell2_Layer3thicknessredux3 DESCRIPTION: White Mesa Mill Cell 2 95% Random Fill thickness reduction point 3 on figure C.1 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 .01 pCi m^-2 s^-1 LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS LAYER 1 Tailings THICKNESS 500 cm POROSITY .47 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.4 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 923 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .2 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 1.155D-03 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .179 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0404 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 2 Lower Random Fill (80% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 152.4 cm POROSITY .43 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .234 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0322 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 3 Random Fill (95% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 1 cm POROSITY .32 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.8 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .377 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0176 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 4 ET Layer (85% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 107 cm POROSITY .39 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .275 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0275 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 5 Topsoil THICKNESS 15 cm POROSITY .35 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.7 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 4 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .194 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0351 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-02 LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO 1 5.000D+02 4.040D-02 4.700D-01 1.155D-03 1.787D-01 1.400 2 1.524D+02 3.220D-02 4.300D-01 0.000D+00 2.337D-01 1.500 3 1.000D+00 1.760D-02 3.200D-01 0.000D+00 3.769D-01 1.800 4 1.070D+02 2.750D-02 3.900D-01 0.000D+00 2.749D-01 1.600 5 1.500D+01 3.510D-02 3.500D-01 0.000D+00 1.943D-01 1.700 BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 7.318D+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 3.113D+02 3.076D+05 2 1.524D+02 6.499D+01 1.088D+05 3 8.813D+01 3.221D+01 2.422D+04 4 1.070D+02 2.033D+01 2.299D+03 5 1.500D+01 2.020D+01 0.000D+00 -----*****! RADON !*****----- Version 1.2 - MAY 22, 1989 - G.F. Birchard tel.# (301)492-7000 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Research RADON FLUX, CONCENTRATION AND TAILINGS COVER THICKNESS ARE CALCULATED FOR MULTIPLE LAYERS OUTPUT FILE: Cell2_Layer3thicknessredux4 DESCRIPTION: White Mesa Mill Cell 2 95% Random Fill thickness reduction point 4 on figure C.1 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 .01 pCi m^-2 s^-1 LAYER INPUT PARAMETERS LAYER 1 Tailings THICKNESS 500 cm POROSITY .47 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.4 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 923 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .2 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 1.155D-03 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .179 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0404 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 2 ET Cover (80% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 284 cm POROSITY .43 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.5 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .234 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0322 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 3 Random Fill (95% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 1 cm POROSITY .32 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.8 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .377 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0176 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 4 Random Fill (85% SP Compaction) THICKNESS 107 cm POROSITY .39 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.6 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 6.7 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .275 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0275 cm^2 s^-1 LAYER 5 Topsoil THICKNESS 15 cm POROSITY .35 MEASURED MASS DENSITY 1.7 g cm^-3 MEASURED RADIUM ACTIVITY 0 pCi/g^-1 MEASURED EMANATION COEFFICIENT .35 CALCULATED SOURCE TERM CONCENTRATION 0.000D+00 pCi cm^-3 s^-1 WEIGHT % MOISTURE 4 % MOISTURE SATURATION FRACTION .194 MEASURED DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT .0351 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-02 LAYER DX D P Q XMS RHO 1 5.000D+02 4.040D-02 4.700D-01 1.155D-03 1.787D-01 1.400 2 2.840D+02 3.220D-02 4.300D-01 0.000D+00 2.337D-01 1.500 3 1.000D+00 1.760D-02 3.200D-01 0.000D+00 3.769D-01 1.800 4 1.070D+02 2.750D-02 3.900D-01 0.000D+00 2.749D-01 1.600 5 1.500D+01 3.510D-02 3.500D-01 0.000D+00 1.943D-01 1.700 BARE SOURCE FLUX FROM LAYER 1: 7.318D+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 3.206D+02 3.008D+05 2 2.840D+02 3.247D+01 2.882D+04 3 1.587D+00 3.221D+01 2.422D+04 4 1.070D+02 2.033D+01 2.300D+03 5 1.500D+01 2.020D+01 0.000D+00 ATTACHMENT I SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR INTERROGATORY 13/1: THE RADIUM BENCHMARK DOSE APPROACH 350496-009 15 August 2012 Jo Ann Tischler Director, Compliance and Permitting Energy Fuels Resources (USA) Inc. 1050 17th Street, Suite 950 Denver, CO 80265 Via Email: JTischler@energyfuels.com Re: Attachment I – The Radium Benchmark Dose Approach Dear Jo Ann, This letter report provides a summary of SENES’ RESRAD modeling in support of Energy Fuels Resources response to interrogatories on the White Mesa Mill (the “Mill”) Reclamation Plan. Based on our discussions and subsequent memorandum of 4 July 2012 (Support for White Mesa Mill Interrogatories), SENES proposed to develop a sum rule for relevant radionuclides by determining the concentration limits based on the radium benchmark approach in accordance with Appendix H of NUREG 1620. This letter report is referred to as Attachment I in Response to Interrogatories – Round 1 for Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, March 2012. The Radium Benchmark Approach The radium benchmark dose (RBD) approach was used to develop soil concentration limits that can be used as decommissioning criteria for the eventual reclamation of the Mill. The Mill is a uranium recovery facility. Therefore the relevant radionuclides are the primary radionuclides in the uranium chain. As a result, reference soil concentration limits were developed for natural uranium (U-nat) and Th-230. In addition, as described later, the dose from Pb-210 is included in the dose assigned to Ra-226. These are the primary uranium radionuclides and the radionuclides 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 2 included in the Mill’s occupational and environmental monitoring programs. They are therefore the radionuclides of concern for final decommissioning of the facility.1 The soil concentration limits for radionuclides other than Ra-226 are derived from doses calculated for Ra-226 at 5/15 using the same exposure scenarios as were used to estimate the dose from Ra-226 at 5/15. This is referred to as the radium benchmark dose (RBD). The RBD approach was applied following the guidance used by the NRC staff in evaluation of the RBD (Appendix H of NUREG-1620 (NRC 2003)). Argonne National Laboratories (ANL) developed the RESRAD family of codes for the modeling of dose as a result of residual radioactivity. The approach defined in this report utilizes the main RESRAD code, Version 6.5. RESRAD is used by the Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Army Corps of Engineers, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Default dose conversion factors in the RESRAD code are derived from the EPA’s Federal Guidance Report (FGR) Number 11 (EPA 1988). The RESRAD code calculates effective dose equivalents from external radiation and committed dose equivalents (CEDE) from internal exposures, providing a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) (ANL 2001). The RESRAD code is an accepted code by the NRC for application of the radium benchmark approach as described in Guidance to the NRC Staff on the Radium Benchmark Dose Approach, a document included in NUREG 1569 as Appendix E (NRC 2003). Included in Appendix E of the User’s Manual for RESRAD Version 6 (ANL, 2001) are many soil type / nuclide specific factors for integration into the water pathway analysis. Values were drawn from this reference based on site-specific information regarding soil type and other site- specific parameters as provided by Energy Fuels Resources (EFR). The RESRAD (Version 6.5) code was used to implement the RBD approach as outlined below: • The dose from Ra-226 in soil2 was estimated: RESRAD was used to estimate the dose from Ra-226 from the surface (top 15 cm) and underlying (“subsurface”) soil (a 15 cm layer under a 15 cm clean cover) separately. The Ra-226 concentration limit was 5 pCi/g and 15 pCi/g incremental above background in the surface and subsurface soil layer scenarios, respectively. The resulting dose in each layer is the RBD. 1 Natural thorium (Th-232) is found in conventional uranium ores and in some alternate feed materials. However, the contribution of natural thorium at the site is considered to be minor, and any residual natural thorium is expected to be cleaned up along with the primary uranium chain radionuclides. Th-232 is a strong gamma radiation emitter and would be identified and reclaimed through any gamma radiation survey for Ra-226. Thus, Th-232 is not considered further in the current analysis. 2 RESRAD calculates the ingrowth of Pb-210 from Ra-226 and adds the associated dose from Pb-210 to that of Ra-226 itself. Since it is reasonable to expect Pb-210 to be present wherever Ra-226 is, the present analysis assumes that at time=0, Pb-210 is present along with Ra-226, each at 5 pCi/g and 15 pCi/g in the surface and subsurface soil layers respectively and that at all times, the dose assigned to Ra-226 is that due to Ra-226 + Pb-210. 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 3 • The dose from the other radionuclides in the soil was estimated: RESRAD was used to estimate the dose for U-nat, and Th-230, separately in the surface and subsurface soil layer scenario for the same exposure pathways used to evaluate the RBD. A nominal concentration of 100 pCi/g was used for each radionuclide and entered into RESRAD to compute a dose. • Scaling of the RBD to radionuclide concentrations: The dose from 100 pCi/g of each radionuclide in the soil was scaled to the RBD to determine the incremental concentration of each radionuclide, U-nat or Th-230, in soil that would result in the same dose as 5 pCi/g Ra-226 in the surface soil layer scenario and 15 pCi/g Ra-226 in the subsurface soil layer scenarios. A calculation time of 1000 years was used as recommended by the NRC (2003). Receptor Scenario The scenario chosen to model the potential dose to the average member of the critical group from residual radionuclides at the site reflects our judgement as to reasonable future land use. The residential rancher scenario is appropriate because according to the Final Environmental Statement (FES) (NRC 1979), the area immediately to the north of the mill site is suitable for residential structures, but was believed to be used only for the grazing of meat animals (beef). It was assumed that meat animals could be grazed along the northern site boundary and eaten by the nearest actual residents. Dairy cows are not likely because the prospect of supporting daily cattle is not credible, given the arid climate and the much larger feed requirements of dairy cattle as opposed to beef cattle. The aquatic foods pathway was not modeled because it would be unlikely that a pond in the contaminated area would provide a significant quantity of fish for the resident’s diet (NRC 2003). The residential rancher would likely spend a significant fraction of time during the year onsite and eat many of the crops and livestock produced onsite. Exposure pathways included external radiation, inhalation (not including radon), plant ingestion, meat ingestion, soil ingestion and groundwater. For a residential rancher with an exposure duration of 30 years, the RESRAD default dietary data which apply for an adult were used. RESRAD Input This Section provides input values of parameters that were altered from RESRAD default parameters to reflect the conditions at the Mill site. Table 1 provides a list of the parameters and reference for the corresponding input value. Justifications of the altered parameters are provided below. 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 4 Table 1 Altered RESRAD Parameters Input Window Parameter Units Value Reference Contaminated Zone Parameters length parallel to aquifer flow m 23 Naftz et al 2012 thickness of contaminated zone m 0.15 NRC 2003 Cover/Contaminated Zone Hydrological Data cover erosion rate a m/y 0 Assumption contaminated zone erosion rate m/y 0 Assumption hydraulic conductivity m/y 227 Yu et al 2001 b parameter - 5.3 Yu et al 2001 evapotranspiration coefficient - 0.795 NRC 2003 wind speed m/s 3.36 Denison 2008 precipitation m/y 0.34 Denison 2008 irrigation rate - 0 NRC 2003 Saturated Zone Hydrological Data hydraulic conductivity m/y 53.6 Yu et al 2001 effective porosity - 0.18 Hydro Geo Chem 2012 b parameter - 7.75 Yu et al 2001 Uncontaminated Unsaturated Zone Data (one layer) thickness m 23 Naftz et al 2012 hydraulic conductivity3 m/y 53.6 Yu et al 2001 effective porosity - 0.18 Hydro Geo Chem 2012 b parameter - 7.75 Yu et al 2001 Occupancy Data inhalation rate m3/y 8,395 NRC 2003 indoor time fraction - 0.25 NRC 2003 outdoor time fraction - 0.5 NRC 2003 Ingestion: Dietary Data irrigation water fraction - 0 NRC 2003 aquatic food fraction - 0 NRC 2003 plant food fraction - 0.25 Assumption Meat fraction - 1 Assumption Ingestion: Non-Dietary Data root depth - 0.3 NRC 2003 a) Used in the Subsurface Soil Layer Scenario only. 3 Titan 1994 reports hydraulic conductivity data for the Mill site almost all of which are lower, typically < 10 m/y, than the value developed from RESRAD tables. 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 5 Contaminated Zone Parameters Two aquifers are used by Ute Mountain Ute tribal members in the vicinity of the Mill. A shallow, unconfined aquifer exists in the Dakota Sandstone and Burro Canyon Formation, which extends to a depth of about 23 m. The water in this aquifer is the source of springs located on the reservation south of the Mill (Naftz et al 2012). Therefore, the length parallel to the aquifer (depth) was changed to 23 m. The contaminated zone is the 0.15 m layer. Cover/Contaminated Zone Hydrological Data The cover depth is entered as 0 m in the surface and 0.15 m in the subsurface soil layer scenario. Contaminated zone hydraulic conductivity was set to 227 m/y and the contaminated zone b parameter was set to 5.3. The Mill is located on Blanding silt-loam (4-5 inch A horizon) (NRC 1979); the hydraulic conductivity and b parameter for silty-loam is provided in Table E.2 of Yu et al 2001. The evapotranspiration coefficient was changed to 0.795 which is the average of the range of 0.6-0.99 for the semi-arid uranium recovery sites (NRC 2003). The average wind speed was changed to 3.36 m/s and the precipitation was changed to 0.34 m/y (normal annual precipitation of about 13.4 inches, Denison 2008). The climate in southeastern Utah is classified as dry to arid continental; therefore the irrigation rate was changed to 0 (e.g., acceptable if irrigation water is obtained from a river). The Recapture Reservoir4 is used to provide facility water for the mill site and as an irrigation source for fields surrounding the town of Blanding (Naftz et al 2012). Saturated Zone Hydrological Data As described above, the soil has a 4-5 inch silt loam A horizon and a silt-loam to silty-clay-loam B horizon (NRC 1979). The saturated zone hydraulic conductivity was set to 53.6 m/y and the contaminated zone b parameter was set to 7.75. The hydraulic conductivity and b parameter for silty-clay-loam is provided in Table E.2 of Yu et al 2001. The effective porosity used in the model was 18% based on data reported in Hydro Geo Chem (2012). Occupancy Data The inhalation rate was changed to 8,395 m3/y, which is used for the activity assumed for the rancher (NRC 2003). The indoor time fraction was changed to 0.25, and the outdoor time fraction was changed to 0.5. It was assumed that the rancher spends the remaining 25% of his/her time off-site, which is consistent with NRC (2003). 4 The Recapture Reservoir is an impoundment of an ephemeral stream on the south slope of the Abajo Mountains (DEQ 2006). 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 6 Ingestion: Dietary Data The contamination fractions of the rancher’s diet were altered to reflect the regional practices. The water irrigation fraction was changed to 0 which assumes no irrigation. The aquatic food fraction was changed to 0, as it would be unlikely that a pond in the contaminated area would provide a significant quantity of fish for the resident’s diet (NRC 2003). The plant food fraction was changed to 0.25; as the arid climate in the region is unlikely to support a home garden that provides the entire plant-based fraction of a rancher’s diet. The meat fraction was changed to 1, which assumes beef cattle raised on-site will be consumed by the rancher. Ingestion: Non-Dietary The root depth was changed to 0.3 m which is the value that is appropriate for vegetable gardens (NRC 2003). Erosion The discussion of erosion in NUREG 1620 is focussed on design of erosion protection and erosion protection covers, and related factors, applicable to disposal cells, which in our opinion is not useful for the present discussion. The RBD for the surface layer differs very little for the scenario with or without erosion, while the RBD for the subsurface layer with erosion is roughly twice as high as that without erosion. For present purposes, the lower RBD assuming no erosion has been adopted. Dose Results Surface Soil Layer Scenario The doses from radionuclides for the surface soil layer scenario are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Dose Results for the Surface Soil Layer Scenario Radionuclide Surface Soil Layer Concentration (pCi/g) Maximum Dose (mrem/y) Time of Maximum Dose (y) Ra-226 5 48.19 0.00E+00 ± U-nat 100 8.84 0.00E+00 ± Th-230 100 105.80 1.00E+03 ± Subsurface Soil Layer Scenario The doses from radionuclides for the subsurface soil layer scenario are shown in Table 3. 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 7 Table 3 Dose Results for the Subsurface Soil Layer Scenario Radionuclide Subsurface Soil Layer Concentration (pCi/g) Maximum Dose (mrem/y) Time of Maximum Dose (y) Ra-226 15 59.18 0.00E+00 ± U-nat 100 2.04 0.00E+00 ± Th-230 100 41.75 1.00E+03 ± Application of the Radium Benchmark Dose Surface Soil Layer Scenario The RBD for the surface soil layer scenario of 48.19 mrem/y was used to scale the doses from 100 pCi/g of each radionuclide (U-nat and Th-230) to an unrestricted use concentration limit for each radionuclide. Using the dose from 100 pCi/g of each radionuclide, the RBD was scaled to determine the concentration limit of each radionuclide as illustrated below for U-nat: The scaled incremental concentration limit (i.e., reference soil concentration criteria for unrestricted use) was found to be 545 pCi/g in the surface layer. The scaled incremental concentration limits for each radionuclide in the surface layer are shown in Table 4. Table 4 Incremental Concentration Limits for Surface Soil Layer Scenario Radionuclide Surface Soil Layer Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 5 a U-nat 545 Th-230 46 a) Allowable Ra-226 concentration. Subsurface Soil Layer Scenario The RBD for the subsurface soil layer scenario of 59.18 mrem/y was used to scale the doses from 100 pCi/g of each radionuclide (U-nat and Th-230) to unrestricted use concentration limits for each radionuclide. Using the dose from 100 pCi/g of each radionuclide, the RBD was scaled to determine the concentration limit of each radionuclide as illustrated below for U-nat: 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 8 The scaled incremental concentration (i.e., cleanup criteria for unrestricted use) was found to be 2908 pCi/g in the subsurface layer. The scaled incremental concentration limits for each radionuclide in the subsurface layer are shown in Table 5. Table 5 Incremental Concentration Limits for Subsurface Soil Layer Scenario Radionuclide Subsurface Soil Layer Concentration (pCi/g) Ra-226 15 a U-nat 2908 Th-230 142 a) Allowable Ra-226 concentration. The Sum Rule Since there is more than one radionuclide, the criteria for unrestricted use is applied using the unity rule such that the RBD is never exceeded (i.e., the sum of the ratios for each radionuclide incremental concentration present (above background) to the concentration limit will not exceed "1") as required by 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6). The concentration limits (Table 4 and Table 5 for the surface and subsurface layer, respectively) were used in the sum rules. The concentration in the numerator is determined by subtracting the local background from the total measured value following remediation. For the surface soil scenario: For the subsurface soil scenario: The foregoing calculations were performed by my colleague Mr. Arnon Ho. Either of us would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have. Yours very truly, SENES Consultants Limited Douglas B. Chambers, Ph.D. Vice President, Director of Radioactivity and Risk Studies 350496-009 15 August 2012 Letter to J. Tischler (Continued) Page 9 References Denison Mines (USA) Corporation 2008. Environmental Report In Support of Construction Tailings Cell 4b White Mesa Uranium Mill Blanding, Utah. April. Hydro Geo Chem, Inc. 2012. Revised Draft Site Hydrogeology and Estimation of Groundwater Travel Times in the Perched Zone White Mesa Uranium Mill Site near Blanding, Utah. Prepared for Denison Mines (USA) Corp. Project Number 7180000.00-02.0. July 10. Kirby, S. 2008. Geologic and Hydrologic Characterization of the Dakota-Burro Canyon Aquifer Near Blanding, San Juan County, Utah. Naftz, D., Ranalli, A.J., Rowland, R.C., and Marston, T.M. 2012. Assessment of Potential Migration of Radionuclides and Trace Elements from the White Mesa Uranium Mill to the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation and Surrounding Areas, Southeastern Utah. Titan Environmental Corporation 1994. Hydrogeologic Evaluation of White Mesa Uranium Mill Prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear Inc., July. United States 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 Final Report. NUREG-1620, Rev.1. June. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 1979. Environmental Statement related to operation of White Mesa Uranium Project Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. NUREG-0655. May. Utah Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 2006. Recapture Lake. August. Yu, C., Zielen, A.J., Cheng, J-J, Le Poire, D.J., Gnanapragasam, E., Kamboj, S., Arnish, J., Wallo III, A., Williams, W.A., and Peterson, H., 2001. User’s Manual for RESRAD Version 6. ANL/EAD-4. July. ENERGY FUELS RESOURCES (USA) INC. RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES – ROUND 1 FOR RECLAMATION PLAN, REVISION 5.0, MARCH 2012; AUGUST 15, 2012 August 15, 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40.31(H); INT 01/1: RESPONSES TO RECLAMATION PLAN REV. 4.0 INTERROGATORIES ........................................... 1 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4; INT 02/1: ENGINEERING DRAWINGS .......................................................................... 3 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN Rev. 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A CRITERIA 1 AND 4; INT 03/1: CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN, COVER CONSTRUCTABILITY, AND FILTER AND ROCK RIP RAP LAYER CRITERIA AND PLACEMENT ..................................................................................................................................... 7 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN Rev5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4; INT 04/1: VOID SPACE CRITERIA AND DEBRIS, RUBBLE PLACEMENT AND SOIL/BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS ....................................................................................................... 12 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN Rev. 5.0 R313-24-4, 10 CFR 40 APPENDIX A; INT 05/1: SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION .............................................................................................. 21 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 1; INT 06/1: SLOPE STABILITY ........................................................................................ 26 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN Rev. 5.0; R313-24-4; 10 CFR 40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4; INT 07/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - SETTLEMENT AND POTENTIAL FOR COVER SLOPE REVERSAL AND/OR COVER LAYER CRACKING ................................................. 35 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN Rev5.0 R313-24-4; 10cfr40 APPENDIX A CRITERION 4; INT 08/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS –EROSION STABILITY EVALUATION ......... 51 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN Rev. 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A CRITERION 1; INT 09/1: LIQUEFACTION .......................................................................................... 58 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6; INT 10/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSES - FROST PENETRATION ANALYSIS ................................ 63 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A; INT 11/1: VEGETATION AND BIOINTRUSION EVUALATION AND REVEGETATION PLAN ........... 67 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(4); INT 12/1: REPORT RADON BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS .................................... 75 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(6); INT 13/1: CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OTHER THAN RADIUM IN SOIL ...................................................................................................................................................... 83 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A; INT 14/1: COVER TEST SECTION AND TEST PAD MONITORING PROGRAMS ................................... 90 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 9; INT 15/1: FINANCIAL SURETY ARRANGEMENTS................................................ 101 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-15-501; INT 16/1; RADIATION PROTECTION MANUAL ....................................................................................................................... 104 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-15-1002; INT 17/1; RELEASE SURVEYS ................................................................................................................................................ 105 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-12; INT 18/1: INSPECTION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE ........................................................................................................................ 106 August 15, 2012 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-24; 10 CFR 40.42(J); INT 19/1: REGULATORY GUIDANCE .................................................................................................................. 107 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-24,;10 CFR 40 APPENDIX A CRITERION 6(6); INT 20/1: SCOPING, CHARACTERIZATION, AND FINAL SURVEYS ............. 108 ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 01/1: Asbestos Inspection Reports ATTACHMENT B Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 02/1: April 2012 Cover Material Field Investigation and Laboratory Testing Results ATTACHMENT C Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 02/1 and 08/1: Revised Appendix G, Erosional Stability Evaluation, to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0) ATTACHMENT D Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 06/1: Revised Appendix E, Slope Stability Analysis, to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0) ATTACHMENT E Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 7/1: Updated Settlement Analyses ATTACHMENT F Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 9/1: Updated Liquefaction Analyses ATTACHMENT G Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 11/1: Revised Appendix D, Vegetation and Biointrusion, to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0) ATTACHMENT H Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 12/1: Revised Appendix C, Radon Emanation Modeling, to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0) ATTACHMENT I Supporting Documentation for Interrogatory 13/1: The Radium Benchmark Dose Approach August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 01/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.31(H): Responses to Reclamation Plan Rev. 4.0 Interrogatories Page 1 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40.31(H); INT 01/1: RESPONSES TO RECLAMATION PLAN REV. 4.0 INTERROGATORIES REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40.31(h): An application for a license to receive, possess, and use source material for uranium or thorium milling or byproduct material, as defined in 10CFR40, at sites formerly associated with such milling shall contain proposed written specifications relating to milling operations and the disposition of the byproduct material to achieve the requirements and objectives set forth in appendix A of 10CFR40. Each application must clearly demonstrate how the requirements and objectives set forth in appendix A of 10CFR40 have been addressed. Failure to clearly demonstrate how the requirements and objectives in Appendix A have been addressed shall be grounds for refusing to accept an application. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: The Division has reviewed the responses to Reclamation Plan 4.0 and is not asking for additional information at this time; however, the Division reserves the right and may submit comments and/or additional interrogatories following completion of review of the Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA) response document dated December 28, 2011 (DUSA 2011). Response (May 31, 2012): No response required. Response (August 15, 2012): Denison noted in their response to Interrogatory 01/1 of Denison (2011) that a facility- wide inspection to determine the presence of asbestos in building materials in the milling facility would be conducted for Denison in the spring of 2012. These inspections have been completed and the inspection reports are provided in Attachment A. The locations inspected included: • Administration Building; • Mill Building, Boiler Plant, Scale House, and the Sample Plant; • Maintenance-Warehouse Facility; and • SX Building. These reports will be included in the next version of the Reclamation Plan. Reference for Response (August 15, 2015): Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison), 2011. Responses to Interrogatories – Round 1 for Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, November 2009. December. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The State transmitted Interrogatory Round 1 following its review and evaluation of Reclamation Plan Rev. 4.0 (o/a September 10, 2010). A meeting was held on October 5, 2010 with DUSA personnel regarding Denison’s plan to prepare and submit a Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 incorporating an evapotranspiration cover system. The State prepared and issued Interrogatory Round 1A for the purpose of giving guidance to DUSA on topics that it must address in Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 for matters relating to the evapotranspiration cover system. A complete review of DUSA’s December 28, 2011 August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 01/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.31(H): Responses to Reclamation Plan Rev. 4.0 Interrogatories Page 2 of 117 response to the Round 1 and Round 1A must be performed to ensure that all issues that are still relevant have been adequately addressed. The Division received a letter from Denison Mines (USA) Corp (DUSA ) dated December 28, 2011 (DUSA 2011) that provided responses) to: (i) Round 1 and Round 1A interrogatories that were submitted to DUSA on Rev. 4.0 of the Reclamation Plan Rev. (DUSA 2009) in 2010 (Division 2010); and (ii) Round 1A interrogatories that were submitted to DUSA in 2011 (Division 2011) regarding an alternative cover system design that was proposed by DUSA in 2010 (see DUSA letter dated October 6, 2010 [DUSA 2010]. The December 28, 2011 response document was forwarded to URS Corporation on February 23, 2012 and is currently under review. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 4.0, November 2009. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 2011. Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories – Round 1A for Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, November 2009. December 28, 2011. Division (Utah Division of Radiation Control) 2010. Denison Mines (USA) Corporation Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, November 2009: Interrogatories – Round 1. September 2010 Division (Utah Division of Radiation Control) 2011. Denison Mines (USA) Corporation Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, November 2009: Supplemental Interrogatories – Round 1A. April 2011. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 02/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Engineering Drawings Page 3 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4; INT 02/1: ENGINEERING DRAWINGS REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: “The following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of above or below grade: … (c) Embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified. (d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels. Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The Executive Secretary will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile. ….Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in slope gradient. In addition to rock cover on slopes, areas toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with substantial rock cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain must be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.” NUREG-1620, Section 2.5.3: The assessment of the disposal cell cover design and engineering parameters will be acceptable if it meets the following criteria: (3) Details are presented (including sketches) of the disposal cell cover termination at boundaries, with any considerations for safely accommodating subsurface water flows. (4) A schematic diagram displaying various disposal cell layers and thicknesses is provided. The particle size gradation of the disposal cell bedding layer and the rock layer are established to ensure stability against particle migration during the period of regulatory interest (NRC 1982). INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Drawing REC-1: Provide design details for Discharge Channel. Drawing REC-3: Provide design details for Discharge Channel. Identify the limits of the proposed Sedimentation Pond. Establish and indicate on the appropriate drawing(s) the location of the main drainage channel. Demonstrate that the Cell 1 embankment and appurtenant apron are designed to remain stable under PMP conditions. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 02/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Engineering Drawings Page 4 of 117 Drawing TRC-2: Correct the location shown by green dashes for the “Approximate limit of compacted cover,” Drawing TRC-4: State where “Filter Layer” is defined. Link Rock Apron A and Rock Apron B to characteristics presented in the table at Detail 1/8. Drawing TRC-5: In Sections A/3 and B/3, indicate the cover thickness to be 9 feet minimum. State the maximum tailings elevation on the North end of each section. Drawing TRC-6: Please explain why the Compacted Cover cannot continue through the entire sections rather that terminating as “wedges”. Drawing TRC-7: Please explain why the Compacted Cover cannot continue through the entire sections rather that terminating as “wedges”. State maximum slope on transitional slopes in Section A/3, B/3, and C/3 to be 5:1. State maximum tailings elevations in each section. Drawing TRC-8: Revise both the Plan and the Elevation of Detail 1/8 to refer to the table provided below rather than stating D50 = 7.4” min. State where “Filter Layer” is defined. Show the “Riprap Filter Layer” on the side slopes of Details 3/5, Detail 4/8, and Detail 5/8 or otherwise resolve the conflict involving “Riprap Filter Layer” that exists between Detail 1/8 and the details cited. State where “Clay Liner” called out in Detail 4/8 is defined. Justify terminating the “Clay Liner” shown in Detail 4/8 at the exterior extreme (of top) of the “Radon Attenuation and Grading Layer”. State the cover thickness shown in Detail 4/8 to be 9 feet minimum. Show the correct maximum tailings elevations in Details 6/8 (presently incorrectly stated) and 7/8 (presently not stated). Response (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the previous response document dated May 31, 2012. Denison conducted a field investigation on April 19, 2012 to supplement existing soils data and further evaluate the geotechnical properties of the potential cover material. Test pits were excavated at select on-site stockpiles and representative bulk samples were collected for laboratory testing. The locations of the test pits are shown on Figure 1 in Attachment B.1. Figure 1 also shows the test pit locations from the field investigation conducted for the on-site stockpiles on October 10, 2010. The test pit logs from the April 2012 investigation are provided in Attachment B.1. Laboratory testing on the collected samples from the April 2012 investigation was done in two phases. Phase 1 testing included Atterberg limits, specific gravity, and gradation (including hydrometer). Based on evaluation of the Phase 1 laboratory testing results for the April 2012 investigation and further evaluation of the laboratory testing conducted on samples from the October 2010 investigation, in addition to information provided by Benson (2012), the stockpile soils were categorized into four soil categories. The categories included topsoil, fine-grained soils, broadly graded soils, and uniformly graded soils. Select samples from the April 2012 investigation from these categories were selected for Phase 2 testing which included standard Proctor compaction, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and moisture retention tests. The laboratory testing reports are provided as Attachment B.2. The results of the 2010 and 2012 laboratory testing are provided in Table 1 in Attachment B.2 and Figures 1 and 2 present the results of the gradation testing and identify the soil categories. The results of the 2010 and 2012 laboratory testing were used to revise the technical analyses for the cover design. The resulting cover design is discussed in the responses to Interrogatory 12/1. The Drawings will be updated to reflect the revised cover design in the next revision of the Reclamation. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 02/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Engineering Drawings Page 5 of 117 The following paragraphs respond directly to the interrogatory comments listed above. The Drawings will be updated to provide design details for the Discharge Channel and identify the limits of the Sedimentation Pond. The Cell 1 embankment and toe are designed to be erosionally stable from peak runoff from the PMP. Erosion protection is provided by riprap on the reclaimed slope of the Cell 1 embankment, and by a riprap apron at the toe of the embankment. The updated erosional stability analyses, including for the embankment and toe apron, are provided in Attachment C as a revised Appendix G that will be included in the next version of the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan). Cell 1 will be cleaned of contaminated materials upon reclamation and the materials will be placed in the tailings cells. A portion of the Cell 1 area will be used for permanent disposal of contaminated materials and mill debris. The remaining area of Cell 1 will be breached and converted to a sedimentation basin. The Sedimentation Pond is designed to grade at a 0.1 percent slope northwest towards the Discharge Channel. This area is designed to be erosionally stable from peak runoff from the PMP with topsoil and vegetation. A rock apron is included at the transition between the vegetated surface of the Sedimentation Basin and the bedrock surface at the entrance of the Discharge Channel. Although channeling in this area would not cause erosional issues for the Cell 1 embankment, Denison has revised the grading to include a drainage swale along the center of the Sedimentation Pond area parallel to the toe of the Cell 1 embankment and draining to the west towards the Discharge Channel as shown in Figure G.1 of Attachment C. The location of the “approximate limit of compacted cover” will change due to revisions to the cover design and the updated limit will be provided on Drawing TRC-2 in the next revision of the Reclamation Plan after approval of the conceptual cover design. The compacted cover was shown correctly as terminating as “wedges” on Drawings TRC-7 and 8 in Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0. The compacted cover is the cover layer that will be compacted to 95 percent of standard Proctor dry density. In some areas of Cell 2 and 3, the placed interim cover is thicker than required for the cover design and/or additional interim cover is required to meet grading requirements. As a result, there are areas in Cell 2 and 3 that do not require the compacted cover layer to meet radon emanation requirements. This is discussed further with the revised radon modeling results provided in Attachment H. A minimum compacted layer will be included for the final design and the drawings will be updated to incorporate this change as well as the revised cover design. A note will be added to the drawings to provide additional clarification. Notes will be added to Drawing TRC-4 to clarify details on the filter and aprons provided on Drawing TRC-8. A minimum cover thickness will be added to Drawing TRC-5 for Sections A/3 and B/3. The maximum tailings elevation will be added to the north end of Sections A/3 and B/3. The maximum transitional slopes will be stated as 10H:1V on Drawings TRC-6 and TRC-7. Drawing TRC-8 will be revised to reference the table for the Plan and Elevation of Detail 1/8. The filter layer and clay liner will be defined on Drawing TRC-8. The riprap filter layer will be added to the Details 3/5, 4/8, and 5/8. The termination of the clay liner will be revised to terminate at the bottom of the radon attenuation and grading layer and a 3- ft berm will be added at the termination location. The minimum cover thickness will be August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 02/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Engineering Drawings Page 6 of 117 added to Detail 4/8. The maximum tailings elevations will be corrected for Detail 6/8 and will be added to Detail 7/8 References for Response 1 (August 15, 2012): Benson, Craig, 2012. Electronic communication from Craig Benson, University of Wisconsin-Madison, to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., regarding evaluation of gradations performed for potential cover soils for White Mesa, May 20. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The Licensee should resolve conflicts, clarify ambiguities, and provide missing information to properly document the proposed designs. Upstream of the discharge channel, it appears that drainage from precipitation events would likely create a random main drainage channel location in Cell 1. It is not desirable for this drainage channel to have the northern toe of the Cell 1 dike as a channel wall. Controlling the location of drainage channeling in Cell 1 appears to be important. Without establishing the location of the main drainage channel location, the Cell 1 embankment and appurtenant apron would need to be designed to be stable under PMP drainage channel wall depth and velocities. Note: Drawing TRC-4 shows topsoil and vegetation east of the riprap rock in Cell 1 and bedrock to the west. REFERENCES: NRC 1992. “Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills,” Regulatory Guide 3.8, October, 1992. 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. Washington DC, June 2003. NRC 2008. “Standard Format and Content Of License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3024, Ma, 2008. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 03/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criteria 1 and 4: Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, Cover Constructability, and Filter and Rock Riprap Layer Criteria and Placement Page 7 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV. 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A CRITERIA 1 AND 4; INT 03/1: CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN, COVER CONSTRUCTABILITY, AND FILTER AND ROCK RIP RAP LAYER CRITERIA AND PLACEMENT REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 1: “ The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6)… UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: “The following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of above or below grade: … (c) Embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified. (d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels. Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The Executive Secretary will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile. ….Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in slope gradient. In addition to rock cover on slopes, areas toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with substantial rock cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain must be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability.” INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Section 5 of Attachment B, Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, to the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0: Please provide the following: 1. In Sections 5.3 and 5.4, clarify the nature and characteristics of wastes that would be placed into the reclaimed Cell 1 footprint area within which the 1-foot-thick compacted clay liner would first be installed. Verify whether and state consistently throughout the CQA/CQC Plan whether any uranium mill tailings materials would be placed into the clay-lined Cell 1 footprint area. If no tailings will be placed in the Cell 1 area, then change the name (“Cell 1 Tailings Area”) given in the T.O.C., and Sections 1.1, 5.3, 5.4.2, and 5.6 of the CQA/CQA Plan to “Cell 1 Contaminated Soil and Demolition Debris Disposal Area” or other name as appropriate, and revise the August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 03/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criteria 1 and 4: Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, Cover Constructability, and Filter and Rock Riprap Layer Criteria and Placement Page 8 of 117 descriptions of waste materials to be placed into the clay-lined Cell 1 area as needed throughout the CQA/CQC Plan to be consistent with the proposed disposal plan. Response 1 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): No tailings are planned to be disposed of within the footprint of the 1-foot-thick clay liner to be constructed in the reclaimed Cell 1 area. Sections 1.1, 5.3, 5.4.2, and 5.6 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to change the designation of “Cell 1 Tailings Area” to “Cell 1 Disposal Area”. In addition, the designation of “Cell 1 Tailings Area” will be revised to “Cell 1 Disposal Area" in Sections 3.3 and 8.1 of the Technical Specifications and Section 3.2 of the main text of the Reclamation Plan. Sections 5.3.3 and 5.4.2 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to denote that the materials to be placed in the Cell 1 Disposal Area will consist of contaminated materials and mill debris from the mill site decommissioning, and that tailings will not be placed in the Cell 1 Disposal Area. To be consistent with the CQA/CQC Plan, Section 3.2 of the main text of the Reclamation Plan will be revised to clarify that materials to be placed in the Cell 1 Disposal Area will consist of contaminated materials and mill debris from the mill site decommissioning, and that tailings will not be placed in the Cell 1 Disposal Area 2. In Sections 5.6.4 and 5.6.5, provide a detailed justification to support the technical appropriateness and the constructability of the proposed topslope areas of the proposed cover system having such extremely flat slopes (e.g. 0.1 to 0.82 %). Provide information demonstrating that such topslope areas of the cover could be constructed with such shallow inclinations maintained continuously over the long distances that are required based on the currently proposed over design drawings such that no areas of runoff concentration or areas where ponding or could occur would result. Provide information justifying that appropriate required tolerances specified for final grades for ensuring conformance to the proposed extremely flat slope inclinations can be maintained and measured in the field with sufficient accuracy to ensure compliance with the specified slope requirements. Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the previous response document dated May 31, 2012. The proposed top surface cover slopes range from 0.5 to 1 percent, not 0.1 to 0.82 percent as listed in Comment 2. Cover with similar slopes have been permitted and constructed for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title I and II sites including: • Falls City Title I site in Texas (less than 1% cover slopes) • Bluewater Title II site in New Mexico (0.5 – 4% cover slopes) • Conquista Title II site in Texas (0.5 – 1% cover slopes) • Highland Title II site in Wyoming (0.5 – 2% cover slopes) • Panna Maria Title II site in Texas (0.5% cover slopes) • Ray Point Title II site in Texas (0.5 – 1% cover slopes) • Sherwood Title II site in Washington (0.25% cover slopes) • L-Bar Title II site in New Mexico (0.1% cover slopes) Settlement monuments currently exist in Cell 2 and the eastern portion of Cell 3 where interim cover has been placed, and the monuments have been measured since 1989 August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 03/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criteria 1 and 4: Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, Cover Constructability, and Filter and Rock Riprap Layer Criteria and Placement Page 9 of 117 and 1999, respectively. The standard operating procedure (SOP) for settlement monitoring was revised in October 2011 to incorporate comments provided by the Division in their letter dated July 2, 2012 (DRC, 2012). The updated SOP has been used since October 2011 for settlement monitoring. For the remainder of Cell 3, and for Cells 4A and 4B, settlement monuments will be installed after placement of interim cover using the procedures provided in the updated SOP. Monuments will be monitored on a regular basis in order to verify that 90 percent of the settlement due to tailings dewatering and interim cover placement has occurred prior to construction of the final cover. Additional interim cover, if necessary, will be placed in any low areas in order to maintain positive drainage of the cover surface. Settlement analyses were revised and are discussed in the responses to Interrogatory 07/1. The results of the settlement analyses indicate that the majority of the total settlement due to final cover placement and creep will occur within the first five years after placement of the final cover. During this time period, additional fill can be placed in any low areas in order to maintain positive drainage of the cover surface. Settlement occurring over five years after placement of the final cover ranges from 0.52 to 0.83 feet, with a maximum potential total differential settlement on the order of 0.31 feet. This estimated settlement is sufficiently low such that ponding is not expected to occur with a cover slope of 0.5 percent. In addition, it is not expected that the differential settlement is significant enough for slope reversal to occur. The recommended tolerances provided Section 5.6.5 of the CQA/CQC Plan are sufficient to meet the specified grading for the final cover surface. 3. In Section 5.7.1.2, described material sampling frequency and filter gradation and filter permeability calculations (with associated acceptance criteria) that will be performed for the granular materials used in constructing the granular filter layer beneath the riprap layer on the sideslopes, to ensure that all applicable filter acceptance criteria will be achieved between the granular filter layer and each topslope cover layer component. Response 3 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the previous response document dated May 31, 2012. Section 5.7.1.2 will be revised to include a testing requirement for particle size distribution testing prior to placement, using ASTM D-422. The recommended testing frequency is at least one test per 10,000 cubic yards of filter material placed, or when filter material characteristics show significant variation. The filter material gradation requirements will be updated based on the revised filter gradation presented in Attachment C. The procedure from NRCS (1994) was used to determine the filter gradation limits. In addition, criteria provided in Nelson et al. (1986) and Cedegren (1989) were evaluated for the filter gradation limits. Reference for Response 3 (August 15, 2012): Cedegren, H.R., 1989. Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets. Equation 5.3. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 03/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criteria 1 and 4: Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, Cover Constructability, and Filter and Rock Riprap Layer Criteria and Placement Page 10 of 117 Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 1994. Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Engineering Handbook, Part 633, Chapter 26, October. Nelson, J., S. Abt, R. Volpe, D. van Zyl, N. Hinkle, and W. Staub, 1986. "Methodologies for Evaluation of Long-term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments." NUREG/CR-4620, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June. 4. In Section 5.7.1, specify the minimum required thickness of the rock riprap layer on the sideslopes – equal to 1.5 times the D50 of the rock rip diameter of 7.4 inches, or the D100 of the rock rip rap materials, whichever is greater, as per NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002) –for clarity and transparency in the CQA/CQC process. Response 4 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Section 5.7.1 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to include the minimum required thickness of the side slope riprap of 1.5 times the D50 or the D100 of the riprap, whichever is greater. To be consistent with the CQA/CQC Plan, Section 8.2.4 of the Technical Specifications will be will be revised to include the minimum required thickness of the side slope riprap of 1.5 times the D50 or the D100 of the riprap, whichever is greater. 5. In Sections 5.7.2, 5.7.4, and 5.7.5 provide additional details regarding the minimum thickness for placed riprap layer material and requirements for using specialized equipment or rearranging of rocks by hand, as needed, in accordance with the specified minimum required final thickness of the rock rip rap layer. Also provide additional details and requirements regarding procedures to be used to verify proper in-place rock riprap layer thickness and procedures for gradation testing in a completed initial riprap layer section, and for visual observations of the test section by field personnel. Provide criteria and procedures for testing additional test sections where observations suggest rock placement appears to be inadequate or where difficulties are experienced during rock place activities. Response 5 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Sections 5.7.2 and 5.7.4 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to include reference to Section 5.7.1 for the minimum required thickness for the riprap layers (see Response 4 above). Section 5.7.2 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to include the following text at the end of the section “Hand placing will be required only to the extent necessary to secure the results specified above.” Section 5.7.4 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to include the following text at the end of the section “Riprap layer thickness will be directly measured as outlined in Section 5.7.2. A measurement device (i.e. tape measure) may be used to determine the distance from the top of the bedding or filter layer to the top of the riprap layer.” Section 5.7.2 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to include the following text “An initial section of each type of riprap constructed shall be visually examined and used to evaluate future riprap placement. The initial section will be constructed with material meeting gradation and riprap thickness requirements.” August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 03/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criteria 1 and 4: Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan, Cover Constructability, and Filter and Rock Riprap Layer Criteria and Placement Page 11 of 117 Section 5.7.1.1 of the CQA/CQC Plan will be revised to include the following text at the end of the section “Gradations will also be performed at the direction of the QC Technician for any locations considered inadequate based on visual inspection by the QC Technician, or if difficulties are experienced by the Contractor during rock placement.” BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: In Section 5.4.4 of the CQA.CQC it states that backfill materials placed around placed demolition debris might include stockpiled soils, contaminated soils, tailings and or other approved materials [as approved by the Construction Manager and CQA officer]; however, in other sections of the CQA/CQAC Plan and in the Reclamation Plan it is indicated that no tailings placement would occur in the Cell 1 area. The ability to accurately construct the extremely flat topslope areas with a uniform slope to the proposed specified grades and within the associated allowable tolerances, and the ability to accurately verify that these flat slopes have been constructed uniformly and without the occurrence of areas of flow concentrations or areas where ponding of water could occur has not been adequately demonstrated. It has not been adequately demonstrated that all applicable filter layer criteria have been met for all interfaces that would occur between the sideslope filter layer and topslope cover components. NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002), Section 2.1.2 recommends that the minimum required thickness of a rock riprap layer be no less than 1.5 times the D50 of the rock riprap materials, or the D100 of the rock rip rap materials, whichever is greater. NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002), Appendix F provides specific recommendations regarding rock rip placement procedures and procedures for conducting testing and visual observations during rock rip rap placement that should be adhered to during construction and that should be addressed in the CQA/CQC Plan. REFERENCES: NRC 2002. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stability”, NUREG-1623, September 2002. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 12 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4; INT 04/1: VOID SPACE CRITERIA AND DEBRIS, RUBBLE PLACEMENT AND SOIL/BACKFILL REQUIREMENTS REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: “The following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of above or below grade: …(c) Embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified. (d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels. Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The Executive Secretary will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile. …Rock covering of slopes may be unnecessary where top covers are very thick (or less); bulk cover materials have inherently favorable erosion resistance characteristics; and, there is negligible drainage catchment area upstream of the pile and good wind protection as described in points (a) and (b) of this criterion. Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in slope gradient. In addition to rock cover on slopes, areas toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with substantial rock cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and geomorphology of surrounding terrain must be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: 1. Refer to Section 6.0 of Appendix G and Section 7.0 of Attachment A (Technical Specifications) of the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0: a. Please define and justify a maximum void space percentage that will be allowed when disposing of demolition and decommissioning debris fragments and rubble in Cell 1. Response 1(1a) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): The procedures for sizing and placement of debris were developed from mill demolition and debris placement at other uranium mill sites in the western US. The procedures reflected in the Technical Specifications were based on whether the demolition materials were compressible. These procedures are incorporated in the Technical Specifications, as summarized below. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 13 of 117 Compressible materials are to be crushed and covered with soils, and incompressible materials are to be placed in the cell, with the void spaces outside of the materials filled with soils. Internal void spaces of incompressible materials are to be filled with soil where possible, or grout if needed. Materials such as pipe and tubing have a varying degree of compressibility, depending on the diameter and wall thickness of the pipe. Pipe with a 12-inch diameter or larger is to be filled with grout or soil for burial, and pipe with smaller diameter was crushed before burial. A requirement for the maximum void space percentage is not included because there is no practical method for measuring this percentage in the placed debris or the compacted soil during or after placement. Therefore a method specification reflecting best management practice from other projects was incorporated in the Technical Specifications. b. Describe, in detail, construction practices that will enable satisfying this specified limit. Response 1(1b) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): The debris is to be spread in a layer such that structural shapes or other large pieces do not lie on across or on top of each other, to prevent nesting. The soil to be used for filling voids around the debris is to be spread in loose layers over the debris, and worked into and around the debris materials until the void spaces are minimized. Enough soil should be placed so that the surface is accessible with tracked equipment. The debris is then walked with heavy tracked equipment to compress the debris as much as possible into the underlying soil. After additional soil fill placement, the soil and debris lift can be compacted with compaction equipment. From the proposed specifications: “The debris, contaminated soils and other materials for the first lift will be placed to a depth of up to four feet thick, in a bridging lift, to allow access for placing and compacting equipment. The first lift will be compacted by the tracking of heavy equipment, such as a Caterpillar D6 Dozer (or equivalent), using at least 4 passes, prior to the placement of the next lift. Subsequent lifts will not exceed 12 inches and will be compacted using a minimum of 4 passes with the tracked equipment or a vibratory compactor. The CQA technicians will monitor and approve of the final debris placement. In areas where voids are observed during placement, the contractor shall re- excavate the area, fill any voids encountered with soil and recompact the materials, or grout the voids.” Vessels and tanks will either be crushed (if thin-walled and compressible) or cut open (if thick-walled and incompressible). Vessels that are to be cut open and filled, will be placed in the cell such that fill can also be placed around them and compacted. For thick-walled tanks or vessels that cannot be cut open due to cutting difficulties or worker health concerns with cutting these items open, these tanks or vessels will be placed in the designated area of disposal, with interior voids spaces grouted full. c. Please provide detailed procedures that will be used to control residual voids to meet the specified maximum allowable void space percentage(s) and a description of the specific August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 14 of 117 construction quality assurance / quality control and verification procedures to be used to demonstrate that the void space criteria will be achieved. Response 1(1c) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Quality assurance observation during fill and debris placement must be used to monitor the occurrence of voids that will require additional material to fill, or additional compaction of the debris layer. The contractor must ensure that debris is size-reduced to meet the specifications, so that it can be placed in the cell efficiently and without nesting or the occurrence of large voids. The Contractor will be required to repetitively attempt to make passes over the debris and fill voids with soil until the QA staff has determined that the voids are adequately filled, or an alternate method such as grouting will be required. The QA staff will make a recommendation to the Contractor for the implementation of a grouting program in instances when voids, either within a debris mass, or within a vessel, cannot be properly filled with soil using conventional equipment. d. Demonstrate how the percentage of allowable void space relates to the settlement analyses performed to evaluate the effectiveness of the procedures for placing debris fragments and rubble, placement of backfill in/around/under debris items, and compaction of the debris/backfill materials, for precluding the potential for slope reversal in the Cell1 cover system. Please also refer to “INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV. 5.0; R313- 24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A; INT 07/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - SETTLEMENT AND POTENTIAL FOR COVER SLOPE REVERSAL AND/OR COVER LAYER CRACKING”. Response 1(1d) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Limiting the percentage of allowable void space within the debris fill will minimize the resulting settlement caused by the consolidation of the debris mass and the potential for slope reversal. However, the in-situ void characteristics of debris mass consisting of concrete and steel of various shapes and sizes, can be difficult to quantify for settlement analyses. The settlement analyses and any correlation to the percentage of voids within the debris will be discussed further in responses to that interrogatory. It should be noted that the cover on top of the disposal cell will not be placed until settlement monitoring of the subsurface shows that anticipated settlement has taken place. e. Please further define the characteristics of, and estimate the percentage of organic materials (including, for example, wood, branches, roots, paper, and plastic), expected to be disposed of. Provide specifications and procedures for disposing of organic materials such that long- term biodegradation of the disposed organic materials will not compromise the integrity and stability of the cover system. Response 1(1e) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): The percentage of organic materials to be disposed of is anticipated to be a small percentage of the total material being disposed. Because the quantity of organics for disposal is minimal and because these materials are likely be mixed with incompressible debris and soil, the biodegradation of these materials is not anticipated to compromise the integrity of the cover system. Additionally, the organic materials will be spread August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 15 of 117 throughout the disposal area which will minimize concentrated areas of compressible organic materials. Organic debris should be size-reduced by crushing, chipping, or shredding prior to placement. As described in the Technical Specifications, organic material should only be placed in lifts less than 12 inches thick and should be mixed with the soil and other incompressible debris during placement to prevent pockets of organic material from being created. Organics mixed with soil for spreading should be limited to 30% by volume of the mixture. This limit will be added to the Technical Specifications. f. Please provide detailed specifications for segmenting and placing metallic waste materials in layers so that structural shapes or other large pieces will not lie across or on top of each other. Please indicate that placement of metallic materials will allow large voids to be minimized and filled with soil. Please address special handling and disposal procedures for oversized and/or odd-shaped steel materials, including cutting or trimming dimensions before positioning for burial, and placement procedures to ensure that no large “slip planes” will occur within the disposal mass. Specify maximum allowable lift thickness for such material placement. Please also describe shredding, cutting or trimming procedures required to ensure that such materials following shredding, cutting or trimming can be placed within the specified allowable layer thickness. Response 1(1f) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): The Contractor will select and place metallic debris by sizes so that larger pieces are not stacked on top of each other at angles. Large structural shapes will either be laid edge to edge so that they can be covered by soil that will fill in open spaces or they must be spaced far enough apart that equipment can operate between them to compact fill. As stated in the Technical Specifications, long structural (incompressible) members will be oriented horizontally. Metallic materials will be size reduced before placement and burial to a maximum dimension of 20 feet and a maximum volume of 30 cubic feet. Any metallic materials exceeding the specified dimensions will be cut or trimmed until they meet this specification. g. Provide additional details of type of materials and placement practices, including specific dimensions of all demolition debris expected to be disposed of in Cell 1. Please justify that items needing to be size-reduced prior to disposal will in fact be size reduced. Provide additional information to justify that a maximum allowable size of dismantled or cut materials of 20 feet in the longest dimension (as proposed) and a maximum volume of 30 cubic feet are acceptable criteria for placement of such objects in a disposal cell. Response 1(1g) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): At this time the specific dimensions of all demolition debris expected to be disposed of is not available. These maximum allowable sizes of cut or dismantled materials have been specified for demolition of multiple uranium mill sites in the western US. While the specified maximum dimensions of 30 cubic feet, 20 feet for debris, and 10 feet for pipe, may be larger than the references cited (DOE, 1995, 2000), typically demolition is sized for the haulage equipment and often the individual pieces of debris will be less than these maximum dimensions in order to fit in trucks. Debris objects approaching 20 feet in length or 30 cubic feet are most likely to be long slender shapes which will have to be laid flat for disposal, or they are large blocky, or open vessel objects, which will be filled August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 16 of 117 for placement. In either case, it is the method of placement in the cell and controlling the lift thickness, rather than the dimension of the debris that will determine the potential for excessive void spaces. The references cited by the reviewer describe limiting the maximum volume to 27 cubic feet however only one of the references cited (DOE, 1995) includes a maximum dimension of 10 feet. The second reference, specifications for Weldon Springs Disposal Facility (DOE, 2000) does not include a maximum dimension for metal waste or large metal pieces, it states only that pipe stockpiled “…has been cut to 10 feet or less…” Based on our experience at other sites, and the review of the cited specifications, the proposed maximum length of 20 feet falls within the range of maximum lengths specified by the cited specifications. The proposed specifications include a maximum dimension of 20 feet for all debris and a 10-foot maximum dimension for pipes. h. Please provide a contingency plan to address the situation in which an insufficient quantity of demolition debris and rubble and contaminated soil would be available to fill the Cell 1 footprint area to a sufficiently high final waste grading configuration to provide a smooth, continuous transition between the completed Cell 1 cover system and the Cell 2 cover system, with no sudden, abrupt changes in slope between the two cover systems. Discuss means and methods that will be used, regardless of achieved final debris/rubble/contaminated soil placement grades, for ensuring that a smooth cover slope transition will occur between these two cell area cover systems. Response 1(1h) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): If sufficient debris, rubble and contaminated soil is not available to fill Cell 1 as designed, the footprint of Cell 1 can be reduced in size so that the horizontal dimension extending out from the Cell 2 is reduced and the lateral extent of the disposed materials is reduced to be closer the base of the Cell 2 impoundment. This would allow the height of the cell to be maintained and the volume reduced, so that the cover slopes, as designed, will create a smooth, positive sloping transition from the Cell 2 to Cell 1. While it is unlikely that the volume of contaminated soil will be insufficient, if additional fill is needed to raise the elevation above the disposed material, clean fill could be used to establish proper positive drainage on the cover. i. Clearly and consistently define procedures/specifications for backfilling of interior void spaces inside debris objects (e.g., backfill of insides of smaller segmented pipe sections). Rectify apparent current inconsistencies between descriptions of backfill materials proposed for such use as described in Attachment A (e.g., controlled low-strength materials [CLSM] or flowable fill) and backfill materials for this use as described in Appendix (random fill materials). Provide rationale for selecting preferred backfill materials (e.g., CLSM) for different types and/or sizes of internal void space, as appropriate. For CLSM/ flowable fill, etc… used, provide information on the minimum required compressible strength of the material. Response 1(1i) (May 31, 2012) and August 15, 2012: The proposed procedure for filling void spaces, either within vessels, pipes that cannot be crushed (with a diameter of larger than 12 inches), or other miscellaneous voids, is to first attempt to fill the voids with soil. This would be done in the case of vessels by either placing soil through an existing opening, or cutting them open so that soil can be placed August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 17 of 117 using the bucket of an excavator. Pipe sections, that cannot be crushed flat, can be cut short enough to stand on their ends, and then filled with soil from the bucket of an excavator. To rectify the discrepancy between Attachment A and Appendix G, the language in the specification Section 7.3.6 of the Technical Specifications will be modified as follows: “The voids on the inside of the item shall be filled with contaminated soil, clean fill soil, or grout (controlled low-strength material, flowable fill, etc.). Contaminated soil (Section 7.3.3) or clean fill will be placed outside of the items and compacted with standard compaction equipment (where possible) or hand-operated equipment to the compaction requirements in Specification Section 7.4.” For debris where internal voids cannot practically be filled with soil, a grouting program would be initiated to pump controlled low strength material (CLSM, flowable fill) into the voids. Debris would be grouped together and characterized as materials that would require grouting, so that a significant volume of debris can be grouted in a single action, rather than grouting individual lengths of pipe. Pipe sections could be stacked horizontally, or cut short enough to stand vertically in a safe manner. Grout would then likely be batched offsite and delivered to the site and a pump truck would likely be required to place the material within the debris, within the cell. A soil berm would be used to contain the grout laterally around the perimeter of the selected debris. The debris voids would be grouted, and grout would also be placed around the debris to develop a monolithic grouted mass. The specified unconfined compressive strength of the CLSM would be between 30 psi (minimum) and 150 psi (maximum). Unit weights on the order of 100 to 120 pcf will be specified. These requirements will be added to the specifications. j. Describe how the compressive strength requirement for CLSM or other grout backfill, in conjunction with the void space backfilling requirements and ultimate allowable void space and organic waste percentages relate to the design objectives for minimizing settlement of the backfilled Cell 1 area debris/rubble/backfill mass to preclude the possibility for long-term cover slope reversals. Response 1(1j) (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): If CLSM is required for the grouting of voids that cannot be filled mechanically with soil, the mix design for the grout should mimic, as closely as possible, the strength and hydraulic properties of the contaminated soil that will also be used for filling voids within the debris. This will minimize any effects of differential settlement that would result from the grout having a higher strength and being less compressible than the surrounding soil. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The placement of debris materials in the reclaimed tailings embankment has the potential to create voids or areas of insufficient compaction. The presence of excessive voids in the final reclaimed waste disposal embankment following waste placement and construction of the final closure cover could lead to unacceptable amounts of long-term total or differential settlement in the reclaimed embankment. Excessive amounts of such settlement could impact the integrity of the final closure cover system, and, if sufficient in extent, result in localized slope change(s) and/or slope reversal(s) in the final slopes of the August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 18 of 117 reclaimed embankment. A slope reversal would create an opportunity for localized ponding of moisture or water which could result in increased infiltration rates through the embankment. To address/mitigate potential concerns relating to settlement following waste placement, procedures for placing and compacting soil and debris wastes should incorporate several requirements, including specifying a method or methods for filling of larger-sized void spaces (e.g., with CLSM/flowable fill or other grout, etc…) that cannot be readily accessed by standard construction equipment for backfilling with soil or tailings. Appendix G to the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 states “Contaminated soils will be disposed of in last active tailings cell or Cell 1. Contaminated soils will be placed in the last active cell or Cell 1 as random fill material (material used to fill voids within mill material, achieve desired cover system slopes, and provide a firm base for construction of the cover system)”. In contrast, Attachment A to the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 states “…The voids on the inside of the item shall be filled with sand or grout (controlled low-strength material, flowable fill, etc.)”. Clarification needs to be made on which method/methods will be used for filling larger-sized void spaces. It is recommended that if the void space resulting from placement of such large concrete monoliths is greater than approximately 5%, then an acceptable cement grout or flowable fill such as controlled low- strength material be placed between the monoliths, or alternativelythat monoliths be placed far enough apart to allow proper equipment access to compact as necessary. Attachment A to the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5 states that “the maximum size of dismantled or cut materials shall not exceed 20 feet in the longest dimension and a maximum volume of 30 cubic feet for placement in the cells”. Additional justification needs to be provided to demonstrate that these dimensions will be adequate for disposal with respect to minimizing potential for differential settlement occurring within the disposal cell. For other similar projects (e.g., DOE 1995; DOE 2000), based on experience gained at several uranium mill demolition debris and rubble disposal projects, specified the following procedures for placing and compacting soil and debris and rubble wastes into tailings repositories to address/mitigate potential concerns relating to settlement: • Limiting the maximum dimension of larger-sized debris items to a maximum allowable length (e.g., 10 ft) in longest dimension; • Limiting at least one dimension of larger-sized debris items to no more than a maximum allowable width (e.g., 10 to 12 inches for pipes); and • Specifying a method or methods for filling of larger-sized void spaces (e.g., with flowable fill or grout) that cannot be readily accessed by standard construction equipment for backfilling with soil or tailings. To accomplish the above objectives, it was specified that larger sized items be placed as flatly as possible rather than in a tangled mass that could result in “nesting”, i.e., result in a compressible mass that would be subject to excessive compression as additional fill is placed and compacted. For these projects, individual loads of larger sized items were also specified to be spread out as necessary to ensure proper filling of any open voids with contaminated soil or tailings and so that contaminated soil or tailings backfill materials and the debris items could be adequately compacted. Additionally, these projects included specifications that window frames, siding, and roofing material be placed and compacted, at a minimum, as pieces or stacks of such materials (e.g., bundles of siding) in an 18-inch lift, occasionally increased to 24 inches for taller bundles of wood pieces; that placement be accomplished in a compact, dense layer with bundles placed next to each other to the extent possible, that voids between bundles be reduced to the minimum achievable, and that bundles that are broken be separated into stacks 12 inches or less in height; and that contaminated soil or tailings then be spread and compacted over the layer not exceeding 12-inches in loose lift thickness. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 19 of 117 Similar sets of detailed specifications were developed and used on the above-described projects for size- reduction and controlled placement of pipe sections, concrete rubble, monoliths, and large rock fragments, and associated backfill placement, and compaction of debris/rubble and soil mixtures. The applicability and benefit of employing these specifications or similarly detailed specifications, should be evaluated, and implemented for this project as warranted. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation. 2011. Reclamation Plan, Revision5.0, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah: September 2011 Denison Mines (USA) Corporation. 2009a. Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Exhibit C: November 2009 Exhibit C: Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) Event Computation, White Mesa Mill - Cell 4B, Blanding , Utah”. September 10, 2009. Letter to Dane Finerfrock, dated September 11, 2009. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1989. Technical Approach Document, Revision II. UMTRA-DOE/AL 050425.0002. DOE 1995. Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project, Slick Rock, Colorado Subcontract Documents. U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque, New Mexico. October 1, 1995. DOE/AL/62350— 21F-Rev. 1-Attachment. DOE 2000. WSSRAP Disposal Facility Technical Specifications, Section 2300: Waste Removal, Handling, and Placement. WP-437, Disposal Cell Construction. May 15, 2000. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989a. Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments, Technical Guidance Document, EPA/530-SW-89-047, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. URL: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VEVCaJfyPDQJ:nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cg i%3FDockey%3D100019HC.txt+site:epa.gov+EPA+Final+Covers+Guidance&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk &gl=us. EPA 1991. Seminar Publication, Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. EPA/625/4- 91/025.May 1991, 208 pp. EPA 2004. (Draft) Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. U.S EPA 540-R-04-007, OSWER 9283.1-26. April 2004, 421 pp. URL: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10074PP.txt. Gilbert, P.A., and Murphy, W.M. 1987. Prediction/Mitigation of Subsidence Damage to Hazardous Waste Landfill Covers.EPA/600/2-87/025, March 1987, 81 pp. NTIS PB-175386. Nelson, J.D., Abt, S.R., Volpe, R.L, van Zyl, D., Hinkle, N.E., and Staub, W.P. 1986. Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments. Prepared for Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC.NUREG/CR-4620, ORNL/TM-10067.June 1986, 151 pp. NRC 2002. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stability”, NUREG-1623, September 2002. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 04/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Void Space Criteria and Debris, Rubble Placement and Soil/Backfill Requirements Page 20 of 117 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. Washington DC, June 2003. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 05/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 21 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV. 5.0 R313-24-4, 10 CFR 40 APPENDIX A; INT 05/1: SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 1: “ The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). Refer to R313-24-4, 10 CFR 40 Appendix A, Criterion 4 (e): The impoundment may not be located near a capable fault that could cause a maximum credible earthquake larger than that which the impoundment could reasonably be expected to withstand. As used in this criterion, the term “capable fault” has the same meaning as defined in section III(g) of Appendix A of 10 CFR Part 100. The term “maximum credible earthquake” means that earthquake which would cause the maximum vibratory ground motion based upon an evaluation of earthquake potential considering the regional and local geology and seismology and specific characteristics of local subsurface material. UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1): “In disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of this criterion. In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long- term intervals.” NUREG-1620 specifies that “Reasonable assurance [shall be] provided that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1), which requires that the design of the disposal facility provide reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, have been met.” INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Appendix E and Attachment E.1 to Appendix E to Appendix D, Updated Tailings Cover Design Report of the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5: Please provide the following: 1. Please further clarify the rationale for selecting the annual probability of exceedance of hazard for the facility. Response 1 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Previous seismic hazard analyses for the site evaluated peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the site for the operational life (MFG, 2006) and long-term reclaimed conditions (Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech), 2010). The seismic hazard analysis by MFG (2006) compared the results of a deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) to USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps showing the August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 05/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 22 of 117 peak ground acceleration (PGA) associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, or a return period of 2,475 years. The projected operational lifetime of the most recently constructed tailings cell at the site is estimated to be approximately 50 years, from the time of construction through the time when the cell will have been dewatered and reclaimed. Therefore, use off a 2,475-year return period in formulating the probabilistic operational design criteria is considered conservative as this event has a 2-percent probability of exceedance over the anticipated 50-year operational design life. The seismic hazard analysis by Tetra Tech (2010) evaluated the PGA for long-term site conditions. Tetra Tech conducted a deterministic seismic hazard analysis and compared the results with the PGA associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance during a 200-year design life, based on the USGS 2008 National Seismic Hazard Mapping Program (NSHMP) PSHA Interactive Deaggregation data. Two percent probability of exceedance during a 200-year period is equivalent to a return period of 9,900 years. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Standards for the Control of Residual Radioactive Materials from Inactive Uranium Processing Sites (40 CFR 192) and the NRC Criteria Relating to the Operation of Uranium Mills and the Disposition of Tailings or Wastes Produced by the Extraction or Concentration of Source Material From Ores Processed Primarily for Their Source Material Content (NRC 10 CFR Appendix A to Part 100 A) both specify that control of residual radioactive material must be effective for up to 1,000 years to the extent reasonably achievable, and for at least 200 years. Use of a 9,900-year return period in formulating the probabilistic design criteria for reclaimed conditions is considered conservative as this event has a 2 percent probability of exceedance during a 200-year period and a less than 10 percent probability of exceedance in a 1,000-year period. A site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) for both operational conditions and long-term reclaimed conditions has been performed for the site. The results of the analysis are discussed in Response 5. References for Response 1 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): MFG, Inc. (MFG), 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. 2. Adjust the cited USGS National Hazard Map PGA (peak ground acceleration) value of 0.15 g for the site Vs30 as appropriate. Response 2 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): The site Vs30 was calculated by Tetra Tech (2010) for the uppermost 100 feet of soil and bedrock underlying the site. The site-specific Vs30 was determined to be 586 m/s. This seismic velocity correlates to materials characterized as Site Class E – Soft Soil, by both the International Building Code (IBC) and the National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program (NEHRP). Denison’s consultant MWH Americas, Inc. (MWH) checked Tetra Tech’s calculation of Vs for the uppermost 100 feet of soils and bedrock underlying the site. The drilling logs by Tetra Tech (2010) and Dames and Moore (1978) were used to obtain information August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 05/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 23 of 117 about the subsurface conditions at the site (Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow counts, bedrock descriptions, and depths of auger drilling versus coring) and to calculate values of Vs for the soils and estimate values of Vs30 for the underlying bedrock materials. The average value of SPT blow counts for the silty sand and soil material encountered in the top 30 feet of the Tetra Tech boring is 58.6 (Tetra Tech, 2010). Using information in Sykora (1987) (eqs.20, 21 and Table 4 eq. 8) values of Vs30 were calculated to range from approximately 660 feet/second (ft/s) to 990 ft/s (approximately 200 to 300 meters/second (m/s)). This is also consistent with information presented in Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 10, and Table 8 of Sykora (1987). Based on the bedrock descriptions presented in the drilling logs by Dames and Moore (1978) to a maximum depth of 140 feet, the estimated seismic velocity for the remaining 70 feet of generally well-cemented sandstone with minor interbedded claystone, siltstone and conglomerate, is estimated to range from 800 to 1,000 m/s. A weighted average of seismic velocity for the upper 100 feet below the site was calculated to range from approximately 620 m/s to 700 m/s. This seismic velocity correlates with materials characterized as Site Class D – Stiff Soil by both the IBC and NEHRP. The NSHMP 2008 PSHA Interactive Deaggregation web site used by Tetra Tech to calculate the PGA for the site limits input values of Vs30 to either 760 m/s or 2,000 m/s. These seismic velocities correspond to Site Class BC (intermediate between dense soil and rock) and Site Class A (hard rock), respectively. Although the text that accompanies the PSHA program states that site-specific values of Vs30 can be input for sites in the Western US, the White Mesa site is considered to be located within the Central/Eastern, United States for the program (Martinez, 2012), and input values for Vs30 are limited to 760 m/s or 2,000 m/s. The available input value of Vs30 of 760 m/s is appropriate for the site-specific analysis based on the range of seismic velocity estimated for the site. References for Response 2 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Dames and Moore, 1978. Site Selection and Design Study - Tailing Retention and Mill Facilities, White Mesa Uranium Project. January 17. Martinez, E., 2012. Electronic communication from E. Martinez, U.S. Geological Survey, to E. Dornfest, MWH Americas, Inc., regarding 2008 deaggregations web site bug, May 16. Sykora, D.W., 1987. Examination of Existing Shear Wave Velocity and Shear Modulus Correlations in Soils. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Miscellaneous Paper GL- 87-22. September. Tetra Tech, Inc (Tetra Tech), 2010. Technical Memorandum: White Mesa Uranium Facility, Seismic Study Update for a Proposed Cell, Blanding Utah. February 3. 3. Explain why the calculated hazard for the background earthquake PGA of 0.24 g was estimated but ignored in the recommendations provided in Appendix E. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 05/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 24 of 117 Response 3 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Evaluation of the PGA due to a background earthquake unassociated with a known structure is typically included as a portion of a deterministic seismic hazard analysis. The analysis includes evaluating the potential for low to moderate earthquakes unassociated with tectonic structures to contribute to the seismic hazard of the site. The seismic hazard analysis performed by Tetra Tech included an evaluation of a background earthquake because it was a deterministic analysis. However, in order to evaluate the contribution from a background event in a deterministic analysis, one must estimate a likely magnitude and distance from the site. Tetra Tech (2010) estimated a magnitude 6.3 event consistent with that used in previous seismic evaluations performed for sites in the Colorado plateau, and cited in their report. The 15km distance to a background earthquake was chosen as a distance which would provide a conservative PGA at the site. The total seismic hazard at a site is better quantified by performing a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis to determine the likelihood of a specific ground acceleration occurring at the site within a given time frame (operational or reclaimed design life). A site-specific PSHA has been performed for the site. The results of the analysis are discussed in Response 5. References for Response 3 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Dames and Moore, 1978. Site Selection and Design Study - Tailing Retention and Mill Facilities, White Mesa Uranium Project. January 17. Tetra Tech, Inc (Tetra Tech), 2010. Technical Memorandum: White Mesa Uranium Facility, Seismic Study Update for a Proposed Cell, Blanding Utah. February 3. 4. Provide information to justify the use of 15 km distance for a background earthquake Mw 6.3 event. Response 4 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response 3. 5. Perform and report results of a site-specific probabilistic seismic analysis in lieu of using the USGS National Hazard Maps for developing site-specific seismic design parameters. Response 5 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Denison’s consultant MWH performed a site-specific PSHA for the Site. The PGA associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years, calculated for the operational lifetime of the facility, is 0.07g. The PGA associated with a 2 percent probability of exceedance in 200 years, calculated for the long-term reclaimed site conditions, is 0.15g. The details of the analysis are presented in Attachment A of the previous response document (Denison, 2012). References for Response 4 (August 15, 2012): Denison Mines (USA) Corp. (Denison), 2012. Responses to Interrogatories – Round 1 for Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, March 12. May 31. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 05/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Seismic Hazard Evaluation Page 25 of 117 BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The rationale for selecting the annual probability of exceedance of hazard for the facility needs to be clarified. Appendix E to the Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5 states that the “10,000 year return period (1 in 10,000 annual probability) is adopted for evaluating the long-term stability of the facility”. However, in the following sentences, the report states that a return period of 2,500 years (1 in 2500 annual probability) is appropriate for the operational conditions of the facility. It needs to be clarified if or how the facility is being evaluated for the two annual probabilities. Is so, further details would need to be provided. It is unclear how the 0.15 g PGA is “reasonable for the White Mesa site”. Appendix E cites the USGS National Hazard Maps and a PGA of 0.15 g for a 10,000 year return period. This value is for a Vs30 of 760 m/sec. The report continues by stating that the Vs30 for the site is 586 m/sec. The 0.15 g value cited in this regard needs to be adjusted for the site Vs30. Appendix E describes background earthquakes and adopts an Mw 6.3 event at a distance of 15 km. Additional justification needs to be provided for the use of the 15 km distance. A single ground motion prediction model should not be used in hazard analysis because the epistemic uncertainty in ground motion prediction is being ignored. Currently, there are five Next Generation Attenuation (NGA) ground motion models, including an update of Campbell and Bozorgnia (2007), which should be used in the deterministic calculation for the PGAs in Table 1, Peak Ground Accelerations for White Mesa, in Attachment E.1 of Appendix E. The USGS National Hazard Maps should not be used for developing site-specific seismic design parameters (Personal Communication between Dr. Mark Petersen, Chief, National Seismic Hazard Mapping Project, and Ivan Wong of URS Corporation 2010) for critical and important facilities. For such types of facilities, a site-specific probabilistic seismic hazard analysis is recommended. REFERENCES: Campbell, K.W. and Bozorgnia, Y., 2007, Campbell-Bozorgnia NGA Ground motion relations for the geometric mean horizontal component of PGA, PGV, PGD and 5% Damped Linear Elastic Response Spectra for Periods Ranging from 0.01 to 10 s: Earthquake Spectra 24, pp. 139-171. 2008 Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 26 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 1; INT 06/1: SLOPE STABILITY REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 1: The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). . . . Refer also to INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN Rev. 5.0 R313-24-4, 10 CFR 40 APPENDIX A; INT 05/1: SEISMIC HAZARD EVALUATION above. Slope Stability NUREG-1620, Section 2.2.3: The analysis of slope stability will be acceptable if it meets the following criteria: (1) Slope characteristics are properly evaluated. (a) Cross sections and profiles of natural and cut slopes whose instability would directly or indirectly affect the control of radioactive materials are presented in sufficient number and detail to enable the reviewer to select the cross sections for detailed stability evaluation. (b) Slope steepness is a minimum of five horizontal units (5h) to one vertical unit (1v) or less. The use of slopes steeper than 5h:1v is considered an alternative to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 4(c). When slopes steeper than 5h:1v are proposed, a technical justification should be offered as to why a 5h:1v or flatter slope would be impractical and compensating factors and conditions are incorporated in the slope design for assuring long-term stability. (c) Locations selected for slope stability analysis are determined considering the location of maximum slope angle, slope height, weak foundation, piezometric level(s), the extent of rock mass fracturing (for an excavated slope in rock), and the potential for local erosion. (2) An appropriate design static analysis is presented. (a) The analysis includes calculations with appropriate assumptions and methods of analysis (NRC, 1977). The effect of the assumptions and limitations of the methods used is discussed and accounted for in the analysis. Acceptable methods for slope stability analysis include various limit equilibrium analysis or numerical modeling methods. (b) The uncertainties and variability in the shape of the slope, the boundaries and parameters of the several types of soils and rocks within and beneath the slope, the material properties of soil and rock within and beneath the slope, the forces acting on the slope, and the pore pressures acting within and beneath the slope are considered. (c) Appropriate failure modes during and after construction and the failure surface corresponding to the lowest factor of safety are determined. The analysis takes into account the failure surfaces within the slopes, including through the foundation, if any. (d) Adverse conditions such as high water levels from severe rain and the probable maximum flood are evaluated. (e) The effects of toe erosion, incision at the base of the slope, and other deleterious effects of surface runoff are assessed. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 27 of 117 (f) The resulting safety factors for slopes analyzed are comparable to the minimum acceptable values of safety factors for slope stability analysis given in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11 . . . . (3) Appropriate analyses considering the effect of seismic ground motions on slope stability are presented. (a) Evaluation of overall seismic stability, using pseudostatic analysis or dynamic analysis, as appropriate (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977; NRC, 1977). Alternatively, a dynamic analysis following Newmark (1965) can be carried out to establish that the permanent deformation of the disposal cell from the design seismic event will not be detrimental to the disposal cell. The reviewer should verify that the yield acceleration or pseudostatic horizontal yield coefficient necessary to reduce the factor of safety against slippage of a potential sliding mass to 1.0 in a “Newmark-type” analysis has been adequately estimated (Seed and Bonaparte, 1992). (b) An appropriate analytical method has been used. A number of different methods of analysis are available (e.g., slip circle method, method of slices, and wedge analysis) with several variants of each (Lambe and Whitman, 1979; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970b; NRC, 1977; Bromhead, 1992). Limit-equilibrium analysis methods do not provide information regarding the variation of strain within the slope and along the slip surface. Consequently, there is no assurance that the peak strength values used in the analysis can be mobilized simultaneously along the entire slip surface unless the material shows ductile behavior (Duncan, 1992). Residual strength values should be evaluated if mobilized shear strength at some points is less than the peak strength. The reviewer should ensure that appropriate conservatism has been incorporated in the analysis using the limit equilibrium methods. The limit equilibrium analysis methodologies may be replaced by other techniques, such as finite element or finite difference methods. If any important interaction effects cannot be included in an analysis, the reviewer must determine that such effects have been treated in an approximate but conservative fashion. The engineering judgment of the reviewer should be used in assessing the adequacy of the resulting safety factors (NRC, 1983a,b). (c) For dynamic loads, the dynamic analysis includes calculations with appropriate assumptions and methods (NRC, 1977; Seed, 1967; Lowe, 1967; Department of the Navy, 1982a,b,c; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970a,b, 1971, 1972; Bureau of Reclamation, 1968). The effect of the assumptions and limitations of the methods used is discussed and accounted for in the analysis. (d) For dynamic loads, a pseudostatic analysis is acceptable in lieu of dynamic analysis if the strength parameters used in the analysis are conservative, the materials are not subject to significant loss of strength and development of high pore pressures under dynamic loads, the design seismic coefficient is 0.20 or less, and the resulting minimum factor of safety suggests an adequate margin, as provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1977). (e) For pseudostatic analysis of slopes subjected to earthquake loads, an assumption is made that the earthquake imparts additional horizontal force acting in the direction of the potential failure (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970b, 1977; Goodman, 1989). The critical failure surface obtained in the static analysis is used in this analysis with the added driving force. Minimum acceptable values for safety factors of slope stability analysis are given in Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1977). (f) The assessment of the dynamic stability considers an appropriate design level seismic event and/or strong ground motion acceleration, consistent with that identified in Chapter 1 of this review plan. Influence of local site conditions on the ground motions associated with the design level event is evaluated. The design seismic coefficient to be used in the pseudostatic analysis is either 67 percent of the peak ground acceleration at the foundation level of the tailings piles for the site or 0.1g, whichever is greater. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 28 of 117 (g) If the design seismic coefficient is greater than 0.20g, then the dynamic stability investigation (Newmark, 1965) should be augmented by other appropriate methods (i.e., finite element method), depending on specific site conditions. (h) In assessing the effects of seismic loads on slope stability, the effect of dynamic stresses of the design earthquake on soil strength parameters is accounted for. As in a static analysis, the parameters such as geometry, soil strength, and hydrodynamic and pore pressure forces are varied in the analysis to show that there is an adequate margin of safety. (i) Seismically induced displacement is calculated and documented. There is no universally accepted magnitude of seismically induced displacement for determining acceptable performance of the disposal cell (Seed and Bonaparte, 1992; Goodman and Seed, 1966). Surveys of five major geotechnical consulting firms by Seed and Bonaparte (1992) indicate that the acceptable displacement is from 15 to 30 cm [6 to 12 in.] for tailings piles. The reviewer should ensure that this criterion is also augmented by provisions for periodic maintenance of the slope(s). (j) Where there is potential for liquefaction, changes in pore pressure from cyclic loading are considered in the analysis to assess the effect of pore pressure increase on the stress-strain characteristics of the soil and the post-earthquake stability of the slopes. Liquefaction potential is reviewed using Section 2.4 of this review plan. Evaluations of dynamic properties and shear strengths for the tailings, underlying foundation material, radon barrier cover, and base liner system are based on representative materials properties obtained through appropriate field and laboratory tests (NRC, 1978, 1979). (k) The applicant has demonstrated that impoundments will not be located near a capable fault on which a maximum credible earthquake larger than that which the impoundment could reasonably be expected to withstand might occur. (4) Provision is made to establish a vegetative cover, or other erosion prevention, to include the following considerations: (a) The vegetative cover and its primary functions are described in detail. This determination should be made with respect to any effect the vegetative cover may have on reducing slope erosion and should be coordinated with the reviewer of standard review plan Chapter 3. If strength enhancement from the vegetative cover is taken into account, the methodology should be appropriate (Wu, 1984). (b) In arid and semi-arid regions, where a vegetative cover is deemed not self-sustaining, a rock cover is employed on slopes of the mill tailings. If credit is taken for strength enhancement from rock cover, the reviewer should confirm that appropriate methodology has been presented. The design of a rock cover, where a self-sustaining vegetative cover is not practical, is based on standard engineering practice. Standard review plan Chapter 3 discusses this item in detail. (5) Any dams meet the requirements of the dam safety program if the application demonstrates the following: (a) The dam is correctly categorized as a low hazard potential or a high hazard potential structure using the definition of the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency;(b) If the dam is ranked as a high hazard potential, an acceptable emergency action plan consistent with the Federal Emergency Management Agency guide (U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1998) has been developed. (6) The use of steeper slopes as an alternative to the requirements in 10 CFR, Part 40, Appendix A, will be found acceptable if the following are met: (a) An equivalent level of stabilization and containment and protection of public health, safety, and the environment is achieved. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 29 of 117 (b) A site-specific need for the alternate slopes is demonstrated. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: 1. Demonstrate slope stability for the tailings impoundment and new cover system using shear strength parameters and other soil properties assigned to the various components (cover, embankment/dike, tailings, and foundation) consistent with soil type, degree of compaction, and anticipated degree of variability. Justify selection of values for soil parameters. Response 1 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. A site investigation to further evaluate cover borrow materials was conducted on April 19, 2012. Laboratory results for samples collected were used to develop updated cover material parameters for slope stability analyses. The results of the updated analyses are provided in Attachment D as a revised Appendix E, Slope Stability Analysis, of the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0). Justification of the parameters used in the analyses is provided in Attachment D. 2. In evaluating slope stability, address and report the effects of shallow and non-circular failure surfaces, in addition to circular and/or deeper ones. Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. See Response 1. The stability analyses were revised to include evaluation of shallow and non-circular failures. 3. Demonstrate that assumed drainage conditions are appropriate, are at least consistent with, or are conservative compared with drainage/seepage results, projected immediately at closure and at the end of the impoundment design life (i.e., 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years). Response 3 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. See Response 1. The phreatic conditions used for the revised stability analyses are consistent with regards to the tailings dewatering analyses. 4. Assess the slope stability of Cell 1 adjacent to Cell 2 where mill debris and contaminated soils are to be placed and covered. Response 4 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. See Response 1. The revised stability analyses include evaluation of the stability of the Cell 1 Disposal Area embankment. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 30 of 117 5. Explain and justify the selection of the pseudo-static coefficient used in the assessment of seismic stability. If the selected value of the pseudo-static coefficient cannot be justified, revise the value of the coefficient used in stability analyses and revise and report the results of stability analyses. Response 5 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. An update to the previous seismic study for the site has been conducted and was included as Attachment A of the previous response submittal (Denison, 2012). The pseudo-static coefficient is estimated as 0.10 corresponding to 2/3 of the Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) presented in the Attachment A of Denison (2012). This pseudo- static coefficient was used for the revised slope stability analyses. References for Response 5 (August 15, 2012): Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 2012. Responses to Interrogatories – Round 1 for Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, March 12. May 31. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The slope stability analyses presented by the Licensee uses the same shear strength parameters (phi=26 degrees, c=900 psf) for the reclamation cover, impoundment dikes, and the foundation soils above the bedrock. These properties were derived from limited triaxial testing of very stiff / very dense material recovered from apparently in-situ soil. Given that the different soil zones in the cover system are to be placed with varying degrees of compaction (some being quite loose) and that the density of the dikes may vary from that of the foundation, the use of singular soil properties throughout the analyses is inappropriate. Shear strength parameters and other soil properties such as unit weight should be assigned to the various earthen components consistent with soil type, degree of compaction, and anticipated degree of variability. The selection of strength parameters should also be explained and justified. Because of the relatively loose state proposed for some of the cover soils, the Licensee’s stated approach (i.e., “circular failure surface analyses were conducted by targeting deeper, full-slope failures as opposed to shallower, superficial failures.”) may miss truly critical failure surfaces. Shallow surfaces as well as non-circular ones should be considered. The slope stability analyses performed by the Licensee assume that the tailings impoundment cells behave fully drained, thus phreatic surfaces were not included in the analyses. The Licensee should demonstrate that such assumptions are appropriate (i.e., are at least consistent with, if not conservatively interpreted) based on the results of drainage/seepage analyses representing conditions immediately at closure as well as at the end of the design storage life of the facility. Such analyses should reflect the variations in the tailings properties and drainage systems (slimes dewatering systems) particular to each tailings management cell (e.g., approximately 600-ft by 400-ft area containing slimes “burrito drain” array in each of Cell 2 and Cell 3 vs. area blanket sand layer and slimes drain piping system in Cells 4A and 4B; ). Tailings properties will vary in response to variations in historic (and future) milling processes as well as deposition history (and future) and discharge –related distribution within each cell. The soil shear strength parameters (particularly those of the tailings) used in the slope stability analyses should be consistent with the drainage conditions thus demonstrated. As described in the Basis for Interrogatory section of “INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV. 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4; INT 07/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - SETTLEMENT AND POTENTIAL FOR COVER SLOPE REVERSAL AND/OR COVER LAYER August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 31 of 117 CRACKING”, the tailings dewatering analyses presented in Appendix H to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report, do not adequately represent (i.e., account for) potential variations in the tailings properties, nor their potential distribution within the various tailings management cells. As requested in the interrogatory cross-referenced above, the tailings dewatering analyses should be revisited or at least clarified and better substantiated, and the Licensee should test actual tailings specimens from the site. The number of specimens involved should be commensurate with anticipated variability of the tailings conditions in the containment cells. The slope stability analyses presented by the Licensee are based on a selected cross-section in Cell 4A apparently intended to represent the greatest height of an otherwise uniformly designed embankment. However, different conditions exist in Cell 1 adjacent to Cell 2 where mill debris and contaminated soils are to be placed and covered. The slope stability of this section should be analyzed. To aid future review, the shading applied to the slices of the failure mass should be removed (thus enabling the profile lines of the underlying soil type to be seen). It is also suggested that contours for the factor of safety be added to the search grid as well as definitions of the search radii. The explanation and justification for the factor applied to the PGA to establish the pseudo-static coefficient provided by the Licensee appears to be flawed. The Licensee’s report reads thusly: “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.” The 2006 International Building Code (IBC) does not contain such a recommendation (it does not discuss pseudo-static slope analysis). The code does use a factor of 2/3 to convert MCE ground accelerations to design accelerations for structural components, but this is an issue separate from and not related to the seismic coefficient used for slope stability. Explain why reference is made to the IBC since that document is for the design of buildings and not earthen tailings impoundments, or revise the discussion accordingly to more clearly state the justification for use of the selected seismic coefficient. Assessment of slope stability under seismic conditions is dependent upon the Licensee’s seismic hazard analysis. Any revisions to the seismic hazard analysis may necessitate revisions to this assessment. NUREG-1620 (NRC 2003), Section 2.2.3 specifies that: “The analysis of slope stability will be acceptable if it meets the following criteria: (1) Slope characteristics are properly evaluated. (a) Cross sections and profiles of natural and cut slopes whose instability would directly or indirectly affect the control of radioactive materials are presented in sufficient number and detail to enable the reviewer to select the cross sections for detailed stability evaluation. (b) Slope steepness is a minimum of five horizontal units (5h) to one vertical unit (1v) or less. The use of slopes steeper than 5h:1v is considered an alternative to the requirements in 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 4(c). When slopes steeper than 5h:1v are proposed, a technical justification should be offered as to why a 5h:1v or flatter slope would be impractical and compensating factors and conditions are incorporated in the slope design for assuring long-term stability. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 32 of 117 (c) Locations selected for slope stability analysis are determined considering the location of maximum slope angle, slope height, weak foundation, piezometric level(s), the extent of rock mass fracturing (for an excavated slope in rock), and the potential for local erosion. (2) An appropriate design static analysis is presented. (a) The analysis includes calculations with appropriate assumptions and methods of analysis (NRC, 1977). The effect of the assumptions and limitations of the methods used is discussed and accounted for in the analysis. Acceptable methods for slope stability analysis include various limit equilibrium analysis or numerical modeling methods. (b) The uncertainties and variability in the shape of the slope, the boundaries and parameters of the several types of soils and rocks within and beneath the slope, the material properties of soil and rock within and beneath the slope, the forces acting on the slope, and the pore pressures acting within and beneath the slope are considered. (c) Appropriate failure modes during and after construction and the failure surface corresponding to the lowest factor of safety are determined. The analysis takes into account the failure surfaces within the slopes, including through the foundation, if any. (d) Adverse conditions such as high water levels from severe rain and the probable maximum flood are evaluated. (e) The effects of toe erosion, incision at the base of the slope, and other deleterious effects of surface runoff are assessed. (f) The resulting safety factors for slopes analyzed are comparable to the minimum acceptable values of safety factors for slope stability analysis given in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11 . . . . (3) Appropriate analyses considering the effect of seismic ground motions on slope stability are presented. (a) Evaluation of overall seismic stability, using pseudostatic analysis or dynamic analysis, as appropriate (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1977; NRC, 1977). Alternatively, a dynamic analysis following Newmark (1965) can be carried out to establish that the permanent deformation of the disposal cell from the design seismic event will not be detrimental to the disposal cell. The reviewer should verify that the yield acceleration or pseudostatic horizontal yield coefficient necessary to reduce the factor of safety against slippage of a potential sliding mass to 1.0 in a “Newmark-type” analysis has been adequately estimated (Seed and Bonaparte, 1992). b) An appropriate analytical method has been used. A number of different methods of analysis are available (e.g., slip circle method, method of slices, and wedge analysis) with several variants of each (Lambe and Whitman, 1979; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970b; NRC, 1977; Bromhead, 1992). Limit-equilibrium analysis methods do not provide information regarding the variation of strain within the slope and along the slip surface. Consequently, there is no assurance that the peak strength values used in the analysis can be mobilized simultaneously along the entire slip surface unless the material shows ductile behavior (Duncan, 1992). Residual strength values should be evaluated if mobilized shear strength at some points is less than the peak strength. The reviewer should ensure that appropriate conservatism has been incorporated in the analysis using the limit equilibrium methods. The limit equilibrium analysis methodologies may be replaced by other techniques, such as finite element or finite difference methods. If any important interaction effects cannot be included in an analysis, the reviewer must determine that such effects have been treated in an August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 33 of 117 approximate but conservative fashion. The engineering judgment of the reviewer should be used in assessing the adequacy of the resulting safety factors (NRC, 1983a,b). (c) For dynamic loads, the dynamic analysis includes calculations with appropriate assumptions and methods (NRC, 1977; Seed, 1967; Lowe, 1967; Department of the Navy, 1982a,b,c; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970a,b, 1971, 1972; Bureau of Reclamation, 1968). The effect of the assumptions and limitations of the methods used is discussed and accounted for in the analysis. (d) For dynamic loads, a pseudostatic analysis is acceptable in lieu of dynamic analysis if the strength parameters used in the analysis are conservative, the materials are not subject to significant loss of strength and development of high pore pressures under dynamic loads, the design seismic coefficient is 0.20 or less, and the resulting minimum factor of safety suggests an adequate margin, as provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1977). (e) For pseudostatic analysis of slopes subjected to earthquake loads, an assumption is made that the earthquake imparts additional horizontal force acting in the direction of the potential failure (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970b, 1977; Goodman, 1989). The critical failure surface obtained in the static analysis is used in this analysis with the added driving force. Minimum acceptable values for safety factors of slope stability analysis are given in Regulatory Guide 3.11 (NRC, 1977). (f) The assessment of the dynamic stability considers an appropriate design level seismic event and/or strong ground motion acceleration, consistent with that identified in Chapter 1 of this review plan. Influence of local site conditions on the ground motions associated with the design level event is evaluated. The design seismic coefficient to be used in the pseudostatic analysis is either 67 percent of the peak ground acceleration at the foundation level of the tailings piles for the site or 0.1g, whichever is greater. (g) If the design seismic coefficient is greater than 0.20g, then the dynamic stability investigation (Newmark, 1965) should be augmented by other appropriate methods (i.e., finite element method), depending on specific site conditions. h) In assessing the effects of seismic loads on slope stability, the effect of dynamic stresses of the design earthquake on soil strength parameters is accounted for. As in a static analysis, the parameters such as geometry, soil strength, and hydrodynamic and pore pressure forces are varied in the analysis to show that there is an adequate margin of safety. (i) Seismically induced displacement is calculated and documented. There is no universally accepted magnitude of seismically induced displacement for determining acceptable performance of the disposal cell (Seed and Bonaparte, 1992; Goodman and Seed, 1966). Surveys of five major geotechnical consulting firms by Seed and Bonaparte (1992) indicate that the acceptable displacement is from 15 to 30 cm [6 to 12 in.] for tailings piles. The reviewer should ensure that this criterion is also augmented by provisions for periodic maintenance of the slope(s). REFERENCES International Building Code 2006. International Code Council, Inc. MWH Americas 2011. Appendix E – Slope Stability Analysis, contained in Appendix D, Updated Tailings Cover Design Report, White Mesa Mill, September 2011 to the Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Rev. 5.0, September 2011. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 06/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Slope Stability Page 34 of 117 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, UMTRADOE/AL 050425.0002, Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Project, Albuquerque, New Mexico. NRC 1982. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide 3.8; Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills”, Washington DC, Rev. 2, October 1982. NRC 2003. Standard Review Plan (NUREG–1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”, NUREG-1620, June 2003. NRC 2008. DG-3024, “Standard Format and Content of License Applications for Conventional Uranium Mills,” Draft Regulatory Guide DG-3024, May, 2008. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 35 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV. 5.0; R313-24-4; 10 CFR 40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 4; INT 07/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - SETTLEMENT AND POTENTIAL FOR COVER SLOPE REVERSAL AND/OR COVER LAYER CRACKING REGULATORY BASIS Refer to UAC R313-24-4 which invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: “The following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of above or below grade: …(c) Embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified. (d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels. Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The Executive Secretary will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile. …Rock covering of slopes may be unnecessary where top covers are very thick (or less); bulk cover materials have inherently favorable erosion resistance characteristics; and, there is negligible drainage catchment area upstream of the pile and good wind protection as described in points (a) and (b) of this criterion. Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in slope gradient. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT Refer to Appendix D, Updated Tailings Cover Design Report of the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5, and Drawings TRC-1 through TRC-8 in the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0 : 1. Please revise (i.e., steepen) the slopes of the top slope portions of the final cover system to provide an adequate factor of safety to ensure long-term stability of the covered embankment area considering: a. The potential for future slope reversal(s) and/or cracking to occur in the cover system due to long-term total and differential settlement or subsidence which could lead to conditions where ponding of precipitation could occur on the cover system in the future, after the end of the active institutional control period; and b. The significant disparity between the presently proposed topslope inclination ranges and published recommended ranges of slopes for final cover systems for uranium mill tailings repositories, surface impoundments, and landfills – namely ranging between 2% to 5% (e.g., see DOE 1989; EPA 1989; EPA 1991, and ITRC 2003 and EPA 2004). August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 36 of 117 OR, alternatively, provide additional evaluations that clearly and unequivocally demonstrate (1) the ability to construct such gently sloped cover systems as proposed, designed, and specified and (2) the ability of the proposed embankment closure cover design to accommodate settlement- induced slope changes (including slope reversal) without increasing infiltration into the stabilized tailings impoundment. Response 1 (August 31, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. In the Basis for Interrogatory, it is stated that the top cover slopes range from 0.1 to 1 %. This is not correct. The top cover slopes range from 0.5 to 1%. While the EPA references listed above specify cover slopes of 2 to 5 %, they are for landfill covers, which cover materials with significantly different settlement characteristics and have different erosional stability performance criteria than uranium mill tailings impoundments. Denison does not currently plan to steepen the top cover slopes. As noted in Response 2 to Interrogatory 03/1, cover with similar slopes have been permitted and constructed for Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA) Title I and II sites including: • Falls City Title I site in Texas (less than 1% cover slopes) • Bluewater Title II site in New Mexico (0.5 – 4% cover slopes) • Conquista Title II site in Texas (0.5 – 1% cover slopes) • Highland Title II site in Wyoming (0.5 – 2% cover slopes) • Panna Maria Title II site in Texas (0.5% cover slopes) • Ray Point Title II site in Texas (0.5 – 1% cover slopes) • Sherwood Title II site in Washington (0.25% cover slopes) • L-Bar Title II site in New Mexico (0.1% cover slopes) Denison has conducted cover cracking analyses for the highly compacted cover layer and evaluated differential settlements. The results are discussed in Response 2. 2. Provide technical justification for 1) quantitative acceptance criteria to be used as the basis for evaluating the potential for slope reversal within the cover system in terms of potential long-term total and differential settlement, 2) quantitative assessments of maximum tensile strain capacity and other engineering properties such as Atterberg limits of the materials to be used in design of the cover system, and 3) quantitative acceptance criteria, including maximum allowable linear and angular distortion values, including effects of bending within any select layer or layers of the cover, and (4) the minimum acceptable factor of safety for concluding that cover layer cracking will not occur. Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. Denison has conducted revised settlement analyses to update the analyses presented in the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0 (Denison, 2011). These analyses were used to evaluate differential settlement of the cover system and the potential for cover cracking. Additional discussion on the revised settlement analyses and evaluation of differential settlement and cover cracking is provided below. The results of the analyses indicate that cover cracking of the highly compacted radon barrier is unlikely. Evaluation of the differential settlement in Cell 2 indicates that the majority of the total settlement due to final cover placement and creep will occur within August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 37 of 117 the first five years after placement of the final cover. During this time period, additional fill can be placed in any low areas in order to maintain positive drainage of the cover surface. The total estimated settlement that could occur (due to primary consolidation associated with final cover loading, secondary creep, and seismic settlement) once five years has elapsed since final cover placement is estimated to range from 0.52 to 0.83 feet. This indicates that the maximum potential differential settlement that could be expected between adjacent movement monitoring locations would be on the order of 0.3 feet. This estimated differential settlement is sufficiently low that ponding is not expected to occur on a cover slope of 0.5 percent. In addition, it is not expected that the differential settlement is significant enough for slope reversal to occur. Settlement Analyses 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 interim cover was placed over the tailings (Roberts, 2012). The locations of the existing settlement monument locations were presented in Figure I.2 of Appendix D to Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0 (Denison, 2011). This figure has been provided in Attachment E for ease of reference. The revised settlement analyses focused on evaluating measured settlement monument data for Cell 2, which has the longest period of record for measured settlement data and includes monitoring data during dewatering which began in 2009. Cell 3 was not included in the revised analyses due to limited measured settlement monitoring data. In addition, interim cover is placed over only a portion of Cell 3 and dewatering has not yet been started. One-dimensional analyses of primary consolidation were conducted at select locations (specifically at each settlement monitoring point) for Cell 2 to evaluate settlement during 1) interim cover loading, 2) tailings dewatering, 3) final cover loading. In addition estimates were made of settlement due to creep associated with secondary consolidation during each these phases. Estimates were also made of seismically- induced settlement due to earthquake loadings. The revised settlement analyses are an update to the analyses presented in Reclamation Plan Revision 5.0 (Denison, 2011). Revisions from the analyses presented in Denison (2011) include incorporation of additional settlement data, revisions to measured monitoring data used in the analyses based on information provided by Denison (Roberts, 2012 and Turk, 2012) and further evaluation of the data, selection of representative settlement monitoring locations based on data quality for use in the analyses, and incorporation of evaluation of settlement due to creep and seismic conditions. The revised settlement analyses are provided in Attachment E. The analyses of primary consolidation settlement are separated into three phases, as presented in Attachment E. The phases are listed below: • Phase 1 – Primary consolidation settlement due to interim cover loading. The time period for this phase is estimated to have begun with the placement of interim cover and effectively ended prior to the start of dewatering. Settlement measurements made during this phase were used to estimate consolidation parameters for the analyses of subsequent phases. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 38 of 117 • Phase 2 – Primary consolidation settlement due to dewatering. The time period for this phase is estimated to extend from the start of dewatering until the placement of final cover. • Phase 3 – Primary consolidation settlement due to final cover loading. The time period for this phase is estimated to be from the time of final cover placement until primary consolidation due to final cover loading is complete. Creep settlement and seismic settlement were calculated and presented separately from primary consolidation settlement in Attachment E. Depth of tailings at each monument location was estimated as presented in Denison (2011) by comparing the base of the cells 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 was estimated to be the difference between the top of tailings and the ground surface as estimated from a LiDar survey taken in 2007. The final cover thickness was estimated as the maximum cover thickness determined from the radon modeling (see Attachment H). The references for the material properties of the tailings and cover soils used in the analyses are listed in Attachment E Estimation of Consolidation Parameters The Compression index (Cc) of the tailings (used for calculation of the amount of primary consolidation within saturated portions of the tailings) was estimated for eighteen of the twenty settlement monitoring locations in Cell 2 for the time period before the start of dewatering. One of the locations (2W5-N) did not have adequate data and was excluded from the estimation. The second location excluded from the analyses (2W5-S) was not monitored until after dewatering had begun. The Cc was calculated based upon classical one-dimensional consolidation theory (Terzaghi et al, 1996) using the measured settlement for the Phase 1 time period and the estimated initial tailings void ratio presented in the settlement analyses in Denison (2011). The thickness of saturated tailings used for Phase I consolidation was estimated using the water elevation within the tailings at the start of dewatering, based on discussions with Denison (Roberts, 2012). A capillary fringe of nearly-saturated tailings above the water elevation was conservatively assumed to also undergo primary consolidation. This capillary fringe was assumed to extend approximately 8 feet above the water level in the tailings based upon information provided in Fredlund et al. (2003), using the measured percent passing the number 200 sieve and the plasticity index of the tailings, and assuming 90% saturation or higher within the capillary fringe that is subject to primary consolidation. An additional 3 feet was added to the saturated thickness estimated for the tailings to account for perched saturated zones in the tailings above the capillary fringe. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 1. The average value estimated for Cc is 0.39 and is within the range of typical published values of sands to slime tailings of 0.06 to 0.566 (Keshian and Rager, 1988). The laboratory gradations for the tailings indicate an average fines content of 30 to 43 percent, which corresponds to the Keshian and Rager (1988) definition of sand/slimes (fines content between 30 and 70 percent). Five monitoring locations from Cell 2 where primary consolidation settlement was observed were used to estimate the coefficient of consolidation, cv, using traditional consolidation theory (Terzaghi et al, 1996) and the square-root-of-time fitting method. Figures for the five settlement locations used in the analyses are provided in Attachment August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 39 of 117 E. The results of the analyses are presented in Attachment E and summarized below in Table 1. For the thirteen monitoring locations not included in the analyses, measured settlements due to placement of the interim cover were too small to develop curves for accurate estimation of cv values. The small settlement values indicate that primary consolidation occurred during placement of the interim cover and it can be reasonably be assumed that a similar response (i.e. primary consolidation occurring during construction) will be seen at these locations during final cover placement. The range of calculated cv values is 0.00034 to 0.00539 cm2/s. The average value estimated for cv, 0.00176 cm2/s is within the range of typical published values of sands to slime tailings of 0.001 to 0.05 cm2/s (Keshian and Rager, 1988). Table 1. Estimated Compression Index and Coefficient of Consolidation Values Cc cv (cm2/s) Minimum Value 0.02 0.00034 Maximum Value 1.30 0.00539 Average Value 0.39 0.00176 Results of Settlement Analyses The estimated Cc values for eighteen of twenty monitoring locations on Cell 2 were used to estimate the total settlement due to dewatering. The dewatering analyses presented in MWH (2010) were used to estimate the final water level in the tailings after dewatering. MWH (2010) estimated an average saturated thickness of approximately 3.5 feet at the end of dewatering. A final water level at the end of dewatering was estimated based on this value using the stage-storage curve for Cell 2. The results of the dewatering settlement estimates are provided in Attachment E. The total settlement due to placement of interim cover and dewatering is summarized in Table 2 and ranges from 0.01 to 1.96 feet. Based upon the results of settlement monitoring, it appears that primary consolidation due to interim cover loading was effectively complete prior to commencement of dewatering. The cv values estimated from the Phase 1 settlement monitoring data were used to calculate the time to reach 90 percent of primary consolidation due to dewatering of the tailings in Cell 2 for five monitoring locations. The results are summarized in Table 2 and range from 0.14 to 0.63 years. The one- dimensional analyses of Phase 2 consolidation assume the tailings are completely underlain by a high-permeability drain layer, and that an instantaneous drop to the final water elevation occurs in this layer at the start of dewatering. These assumptions will result in consolidation due to dewatering occurring at a rate described by the classical pore-pressure dissipation curve for double-drained conditions (Lambe and Whitman, 1969). It should be noted the assumptions made in the one-dimensional consolidation analyses of Phase 2 (i.e. complete coverage of the tailings impoundment by an infinitely- permeable underdrain system, and instantaneous drawdown to final water level) do not exist within the impoundment, and will result in an underestimation of the time required to achieve 90% consolidation. The results of the tailings dewatering analysis, which includes the 3-dimensional aspects of flow toward the underdrain strips, and a finite underdrain permeability, are considered to provide a more reliable estimate of the duration Phase 2 consolidation. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 40 of 117 The total settlement due to final cover placement was estimated for the eighteen monitoring locations using the estimated Cc values and the final water level estimated from MWH (2010). The results are provided in Attachment E and summarized in Table 2. The estimated cv values were used to estimate the time to reach 90 percent consolidation due to placement of the final cover in Cell 2 for five monitoring locations. The results are presented in Attachment E and summarized in Table 2. The values for time to reach 90 percent consolidation due to final cover placement range from 0.42 to 2.12 years. Based upon the settlement monitoring results obtained after interim cover placement, it is conservatively assumed 90% consolidation will be achieved during placement of the final cover at the other monitoring locations, as discussed previously. Creep settlement was estimated using the method presented in Holtz and Kovacs (1981) using the average value of Cc and assuming a typical value for the Cα/Cc ratio for saturated soils from Terzaghi et al. (1996). The time period used for analysis of creep settlement was 1000 years. The results are presented in Attachment E and summarized in Table 2. The range of values for creep settlement is 0.09 to 0.31 feet. Approximately one third of the creep settlement is estimated to occur within the first five years of placement of the final cover. Seismic settlement was estimated using methods presented in Stewart and Wang (2003) and seismic parameters presented in the updated seismic study provided in the May 31, 2012 response document. An uncorrected (SPT) blow count of 2 in 12 inches was conservatively assumed for the tailings. The results are presented in Attachment E and summarized in Table 2. The range of values for seismic settlement is 0.46 to 0.60 feet. Table 2 Summary of Settlement Results Parameter Min. Max. Ave. Total Settlement due to Interim Cover Placement and Dewatering (ft) 0.02 1.49 0.31 Total Settlement due to Final Cover Placement (ft) 0.02 1.34 0.34 Total Settlement due to Seismic Event (ft) 0.46 0.60 0.53 Total Settlement due to 1000 Years of Creep (ft) 0.09 0.31 0.22 Total Settlement five years after placement of Final Cover due to Final Cover Placement, Creep, and a Seismic Event (ft) 0.52 0.83 0.68 Time to Reach 90% Primary Consolidation due to Dewatering (yrs) 0.14 0.63 0.34 Time to Reach 90% Primary Consolidation Following Final Cover Placement (yrs) 0.42 2.12 1.03 Differential Settlement and Cover Cracking Analysis The majority of the total settlement due to final cover placement and creep will occur within the first five years after placement of the final cover. During this time period, additional fill can be placed in any low areas in order to maintain positive drainage of the cover surface. The total estimated settlement that could occur (due to primary August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 41 of 117 consolidation associated with final cover loading, secondary creep, and seismic settlement) once five years has elapsed since final cover placement is estimated to range from 0.52 to 0.83 feet. This indicates that the maximum potential differential settlement that could be expected between adjacent movement monitoring locations would be on the order of 0.3 feet. This estimated differential settlement is sufficiently low that ponding is not expected to occur on a cover slope of 0.5 percent. In addition, it is not expected that the differential settlement is significant enough for slope reversal to occur. Cover cracking analyses were evaluated for the highly compacted radon barrier for the timer period after placement of the final cover. The maximum differential total settlement due to final cover placement, creep, and a seismic event is 1.66 feet between the settlement monument 2W3-S and the edge of the tailings cell (conservatively estimated to have settlement equal to 0). The horizontal distance between the two locations is approximately 230 feet. However, the differential settlement between monitoring point 2W4-S and the edge of the tailings cell of 0.9 feet in 100 feet was used for the cover cracking analyses because the resulting horizontal strain is larger for this case. Morrison-Knudsen Environmental Corporation (1993) presents a method for determining the tensile strain required to cause cracking of the radon barrier as a function of the plasticity index (PI) of the soil. The tensile strain at cracking is calculated by the equation below: εf (%) = 0.05 +0.003 x (PI) where: εf(%) = tensile strain to cause cracking of the radon barrier, and PI = plasticity index of radon barrier. The PI value for the highly compacted radon attenuation layer was conservatively estimated as the lowest measured PI (0) for composite samples collected during the April 2012 borrow investigation (see Attachment B.2). Using this value for PI, the tensile strain to cause cracking is 0.05 percent. The maximum horizontal tensile strain on the radon attenuation layer must be less than 0.05 percent so that cover cracking will not occur. The horizontal movement at the top of the radon barrier can be calculated based on the following equation (Lee and Shen, 1969), which is referenced in NUREG 1620 (NRC, 2003) for cover cracking analysis: αHm3 2= where: m = horizontal movement in feet, H = thickness of relatively incompressible material (radon barrier overlying the random fill), and α = local slope of the settlement profile (expressed as decimal fraction). The horizontal movement at the maximum tailing thickness is calculated to be 0.028 feet using a maximum thickness of relatively incompressible material of 4.7 feet, and a total differential settlement of 0.9 feet over 100 feet. The thickness of relatively incompressible material was estimated assuming a maximum 4.7-ft highly compacted radon barrier. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 42 of 117 The horizontal strain between any two settlement monitoring locations is the maximum horizontal movement divided by the horizontal distance (0.028 ft/100 ft). Using these values, the maximum horizontal strain is calculated as 0.028 percent. This value is lower than the maximum allowable strain of 0.05 percent. This indicates that cracking of the radon attenuation layer is not likely. References for Response 2 (August 15, 2012): Denison Mines (USA) Corporation (Denison), 2011. Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, September. Fredlund, M.D., Fredlund, D.G., Houston, S.L., and Houston, W., 2003. Assessment of Unsaturated Soil Properties for Seepage Modeling Through Tailings and Mine Wastes, Proceedings of Tailings and Mine Waste 2003. Holtz, R.D. and Kovacs, W.D., 1981. An Introduction to Geotechnical Engineering. Prentice Hall, Inc. New Jersey. 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. Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V., 1969. Soil Mechanics. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1969. Lee, K.L., and C.K. Shen, 1969. “Horizontal Movements Related to Subsidence.” Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE Volume 95. January. Morrison-Knudsen Environmental Corporation (Morrison-Knudsen), 1993. UMTRA- Naturita, Embankment Design, Settlement Analysis and Cracking Potential Evaluation. Calc. No. 17-740-02-01. May. 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. Roberts, H., 2012. Personal communication from Harold Roberts, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc. regarding water levels in Cell 2 prior to dewatering, as well as additional information on placement of settlement monuments, July 26. Stewart, L. P., and D. H. Whang, 2003. Simplified Procedure to Estimate Ground Settlement from Seismic Compression in Compacted Soils. 2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Terzaghi, K., R. Peck, and G. Mesri, 1996. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice, Third Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. Turk, D., 2012. Personal communication from David Turk, Denison Mines (USA) Corp., to Steve McManus, MWH Americas, Inc. regarding settlement monitoring procedures and changes in measurement procedures and/or personnel during measurement time period and on select measurement dates., August 1. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 43 of 117 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 Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978, Final Report.” NUREG-1620. June. 3. Provide engineering analyses (including calculations and numerical modeling simulations as applicable) documenting the range of anticipated total and differential settlements within each of the containment cells. In doing so, use consolidation parameters obtained from site-specific testing of the tailings materials, reflecting both spatial and temporal variations in the tailings. Data from other sources may supplement (but not replace) site-specific test data in the analyses. Response 3 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. See Response 2. Denison will not be conducting site-specific testing of tailings. Denison has updated estimations for consolidation parameters based on further evaluation of historical settlement monitoring data and incorporation of more recent settlement monitoring data. The analyses are consistent with tailings dewatering analyses previously conducted. The consolidation analyses included sensitivity analyses to evaluate a range of coefficients of consolidation and compression indices. 4. Demonstrate that tailings have been deposited in such a way that variations in tailings properties by location do not compromise the stability of the tailings as a foundation for cover system construction. Consider effects of sand-rich tailings zones lying adjacent to our near slime-rich tailings zones, due to deposition during slurry flow. Describe and account for effects of any different tailings placement methods (e.g., wet slurry vs. thickened slurry deposition) used throughout the mill’s operating life. Identify and quantify the effects on stability of variations in such tailings physical characteristics as moisture content, consolidation coefficients, specific gravity, hydraulic conductivity (as listed in Appendix D Updated Tailings Cover Design Report, September 2011). Perform and provide results of numerical analyses using this information to project differential settlement across the tailings impoundments using software such as the Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continuum (FLAC®) code (Itasca 2009) or other similar software, as appropriate. Alternatively, provide information to justify why such analyses are not warranted. Response 4 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response 2. Knowledge of tailings discharge history with observation of the response of tailings to interim cover placement (i.e. settlement monitoring) provide the most reliable information for identifying the potential for, and location of slimes or other soft zones. Interim cover has been placed over the tailings in Cell 2 and the portions of Cell 3. No cover stability issues have been observed since placement of the interim cover in either cell. Typically the worst-case foundation conditions for cover stability occur as the interim cover is first placed and the saturated tailings thicknesses are at a maximum. As the tailings dewater, settlement within the tailings is observed as the effective stresses increase within the tailings. As tailings consolidation and settlement occur, the stability of the tailings as a foundation for the cover system improves. Observation and monitoring of the tailing behavior will continue be conducted as the interim cover is being placed and dewatering progresses. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 44 of 117 5. Include secondary settlement (i.e., creep) and any seismically induced settlement of the tailings in settlement analyses and consider their effects when assessing the anticipated performance of the cover system. Response 5 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. See Response 2. The revised settlement analyses include secondary (creep) settlement and seismically induced settlement. 6. Demonstrate that the results of settlement analyses are consistent with results of drainage/dewatering analyses. Ensure that drainage/dewatering analyses reflect the tailings and drainage conditions (including slime drain system) existing in each cell. Response 6 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. See Response 2. As discussed in Response 2, the drainage/dewatering analyses more accurately reflect underdrainage conditions than do the one-dimensional consolidation analyses and as such, provide a more reliable estimate of the rates of primary consolidation during the dewatering phase. The total amounts of consolidation settlement are dependent on the initial and final water levels, and as such, the one- dimensional consolidation analyses are seen as providing a realistic estimate of total amount of primary consolidation settlement due to dewatering. 7. Perform and report results of sensitivity and uncertainty analyses to demonstrate that the cover system will remain stable despite the effects of differential settlement. Report the time required to reach 90% consolidation. Response 7 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. See Response 2. 8. As part of the analyses identified above, please also perform a seepage analyses to evaluate the shape of the phreatic surface within the tailings prism for each representative area within Cells 2 and/or 3, 4A, and 4B to be analyzed for consolidation timeframes and in differential settlement analyses. Ensure that effects of planned dewatering procedures and the dewatering system design configuration in each specific cell analyzed are reflected in seepage analyses. Response 8 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. Sufficient information was provided in the dewatering analyses to estimate the rate at which consolidation settlement will occur during dewatering. Supplemental seepage analyses were not performed for the settlement analyses. The actual rates and amounts of settlement occurring during the dewatering phase will continue to be monitored as dewatering progresses to provide verification of the estimated settlements at each monitoring location. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 45 of 117 9. Provide sensitivity analyses to assess the effect a of changes in tailings coefficients of consolidation parameters, void ratios, and tailings hydraulic conductivity values (note: it is acknowledged that values of all of these parameters are subject to uncertainty) on the amount of time required to reach approximately 90% consolidation of the tailings at each locations assessed within each cell and/or across individual tailings cells. Response 9 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the May 31, 2012 submittal. Sensitivity analyses to variations in the rate parameters (as reflected in settlement monitoring results) were performed for the 90 percent consolidation calculations and the range of values are provided in Response 2 for Cell 2. The results for Cell 2 are considered representative of the conditions that would be expected for Cell 3 and Cells 4A and 4B. 10. Using the information obtained from the analyses identified above, for each critical section defined, complete differential settlement analyses and compare the analyses results to the specified design criteria and evaluate the potential for slope reversal(s) to occur in the cover system over the tailings cells over the worst-case sections analyzed. Response 10 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response 2. 11. Provide information on the expected range of plasticity characteristics of the soil materials proposed for use for constructing the highly compacted upper portion of the radon attenuation and radon attenuation and grading layer of the proposed cover system, and specify design criteria (including maximum allowable values of both linear and angular distortion) to be used for evaluating the potential for cracking of this layer to occur as a result of any differential settlement that may occur. Response 11 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response 2. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY The proposed cover slope (minimum of 0.1% to a maximum of 1.0 %) is very flat and, based on the information provided, has to be considered to likely be problematic from the standpoint of potential long- term subsidence/differential settlement. 10CFR 40, Appendix A, Technical Criterion 4(c) specifies that embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion and provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability (emphasis added). Technical guidance developed for and typically utilized by the U.S. Department of Energy on the UMTRA Project for design and construction of uranium mill tailings repositories included typical repository topslope inclinations of 2 to 3 percent (U.S. DOE 1989, Section 3, Figure 3-3). Further, minimum technology guidance for final cover systems for surface impoundments recommended by the USEPA (EPA 1989; EPA 1991) consists of the following: August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 46 of 117 “…a top layer…, the surface of which slopes uniformly at least 3 percent but not more than 5 percent, to facilitate runoff while minimizing erosion, …” Additionally, an EPA document published in 2004 (EPA) further discusses this guideline in the following context: “…[In the Draft Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers, EPA states that] most landfill cover system top decks are designed to have a minimum inclination of 2% to 5%, after accounting for settlement, to promote runoff of surface water. …However, [EPA states that] in some cases involving the closure or remediation of existing landfills, waste piles, or source areas, flatter slopes may already exist and that the cost to increase the slope inclination by fill placement or waste excavation may be significant. In these cases, slightly flatter inclinations can be considered if the future settlement potential can be demonstrated to be small, if concerns about localized subsidence can be adequately addressed, and if monitoring and maintenance provisions exist to repair areas of grade reversal or subsidence…” The proposed cover topslope inclinations (minimum of 0.1%) are much flatter than the above recommended ranges. The cover design should include a topslope slope inclination that ensures that an adequate factor of safety is provided to maintain long-term stability of the completed embankment(s), considering the potential for future slope reversal(s) due to long-term differential settlement or subsidence, given a reasonable estimate of the range of different tailings characteristics and tailings consolidation conditions that may exist within the different tailings placement cells. The final topslope inclinations must ensure that the topslope portion of the embankment will maintain a positive slope across the entire embankment after settlement/subsidence, thus providing lateral runoff of precipitation without ponding throughout the performance period of the covered and closed embankment. Drawings TRC-3 through TRC-8 of the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 depict several areas where slopes are nearly flat and have low-lying areas already (e.g. over portions of Cell 2) where differential settlement, if it were to occur, could further aggravate these areas from the standpoint of further flattening or creating of larger areas of flat ground surface for future ponding of incident precipitation. Available published information and/or testing should be used to estimate the maximum amount of strain/maximum distortion value that can be tolerated within the compacted layer over the design life of the embankment and not crack the radon barrier. Such a limit should be based on properties (e.g., range of plasticity indices) of the soils proposed for constructing the compacted portion of the radon barrier layer. Engineering analyses should be provided for various representative disposal configurations involving disposed tailings to demonstrate that predicted settlement/subsidence magnitudes and locations will not exceed specified acceptance criteria for strain or distortion value. To quantify the amount of settlement in the tailings due to the placement of the interim and final soil covers, the Licensee has attempted to quantify the coefficients of consolidation (cv) and compression indices (Cc) for the tailings based on back-analysis of existing settlement monitoring data from Cells 2 and 3. While this approach is a conceptually sound approach for obtaining site-specific parameters, successful implementation often proves to be problematic. For instance, high quality monitoring data is needed. Unfortunately, the monitoring data exhibits an appreciable amount of “noise” and numerous erratic shifts, making it uncertain as to which data points are the "real data" to which the modeled settlement response should be matched. This approach also typically requires that the initial portion of the load-settlement curve be well defined. Without this initial data, the total amount of settlement ultimately expected to occur can be difficult to accurately quantify, particularly if the rate of consolidation is rapid relative to the rate of loading (i.e., cover placement). Any settlement occurring during construction of the cover and before monitoring begins is lost, leading to questions as to how tightly the “bend” in the time rate of consolidation curve should be matched in the absence of a well- defined starting point for the settlement model. It should also be noted that assessing the goodness of the fit itself can also be problematic. For example, while the report states that the model values of Cc and cv August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 47 of 117 were varied “until the observed settlement curve correlated well with the calculated settlement”, it is the reviewer’s opinion that the degree of correlation achieved was not always “well”, particularly for the first and most meaningful part of the consolidation time history curve shown in Fig F-1, and for the entire plots shown for cells 2W1, 2W3, 3-1C, 3-1S. It may be simply fortuitous that the back-calculated values appear to be within the ranges suggested Keshian and Rager (cited by the Licensee), particularly recognizing that the ranges cover one or more orders of magnitude. It should also be noted that no assessment has been made as to whether or not the tailings’ behavior in Cells 2 and 3 are applicable to the other cells. It is noted that the calculated/estimated amounts of settlement presented in the report appear to be based on assumed dry and saturated unit weights of 86.3 and 117.1 pcf, respectively. However, elsewhere in the report, (Section C.2.4 of sub-Appendix C in Appendix D), the tailings are described as having a dry unit weight of 74.3 pcf. Consistent characterization of the tailings throughout the report seems to be needed, or at least this variation should be accounted for when reporting values of settlement. It is also noted that all the back analyses involved the same initial void ratio for the tailings which is a very unlikely scenario given that the other consolidation parameters (which are not entirely independent of void ratio) were varied. A key deficiency of the settlement assessment presented by the Licensee lies in the following conclusion: “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.” The calculated settlements are magnitudes of settlement without specified locations, whereas an assessment of ponding potential (i.e., localized grade reversal of the cover) requires that the spatial variation of settlement be known or calculated. The reported magnitudes of vertical settlement need to be translated into reliable estimates of differential settlement in order to properly assess the adequacy of the cover slope. In doing this, the Licensee should evaluate the various areas within individual tailings placement cells and/or or spanning more than one of the tailings Cells 2, 3, and 4A/B where tailings slurry deposition modes may vary, leading to different tailings conditions within and/or between cells (e.g., tailings areas comprised of sand/slime mixture located laterally adjacent to tailings areas containing mostly slimes, including, for example, areas near side slope portions of tailings placement cells where more sand-rich tailings may be laterally juxtaposed against slime-rich tailings areas). The analysis should particularly account for varying thicknesses of compressible tailings along the side slopes of the cells as well as the potential for differences in stress conditions along such slopes. The locations and characteristics for the different tailings materials (such as moisture content, horizontal and vertical coefficients of consolidation, specific gravity, void ratios, unit weights, hydraulic conductivity, etc.) should be clearly shown for one or more analyzed critical cross- sections. While the above discussion focuses on the settlement of tailings, different conditions exist in Cell 1 adjacent to Cell 2 where mill debris and contaminated soils instead of tailings are to be placed and covered. Total and differential settlement based on the particular conditions of this cell together with their effects on both the liner and cover systems should be assessed. To more reliably quantify total and differential settlements as well as settlement rates for the tailings impoundments, the Licensee should test tailings specimens to determine their consolidation properties. The number of specimens involved should be commensurate with anticipated variability of the tailings conditions in the containment cells. The Licensee should then consider performing coupled stress and seepage analyses of critical cross-section of Cells 2 and 3, and/or 4A/B. As a minimum, the settlement analyses should be compared with the drainage/seepage/dewatering analyses to demonstrate that they are consistent. It appears that such a check was not performed since the discussion of the results of the time-rate of consolidation/settlement does not make any reference to the dewatering analyses in sub- Appendix H, despite the fact that the back-calculated coefficients of consolidation of the former should be August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 48 of 117 proportional to the hydraulic conductivity values of the latter (the coefficient of consolidation is a composite variable which includes hydraulic conductivity). Unfortunately, the tailings dewatering analyses presented in sub-Appendix H do not adequately represent (i.e., account for) potential variations in the tailings properties, nor their potential distribution within the containment cells. In the models presented for Cells 2 and 3, isotropic conditions are assumed (which is very unlikely) and a single hydraulic conductivity value is assigned to all of the tailings (which might be acceptable if the effect/sensitivity of the parameter had been assessed parametrically – but it wasn’t). The hydraulic conductivity value itself appears to be flawed, apparently being based on the geometric mean of four discrete hydraulic conductivity values taken from technical literature (representing four generic soil types ranging from medium sand to silty clayey) which span 5 orders of magnitude. It is inappropriate to use a type of average, single value to represent such a vast range of hydraulic conductivity. (Although there is seemingly contradictory information as to what was really used as the basis for the hydraulic conductivity in the analysis. On page J[sic]-4 of sub-Appendix H, the text states that hydraulic conductivity values are based on testing from the Canon City Mill tailings whereas attachment H-2 indicates that the hydraulic value is based on the aforementioned averaging of typical values. Clarification is needed). The tailings dewatering analyses should be revisited or at least clarified and better substantiated. To reliably quantify total and differential both drainage and settlement characteristics of the tailings, the Licensee should test actual tailings specimens from the site. Drainage/seepage/dewatering analyses performed should reflect the tailings and drainage conditions (including drainage system) associated with each particular cell. One or more cross-sections may need to be considered. Due to uncertainty and/or inherent variability of the tailings materials, multiple analyses bracketing the ranges of anticipated engineering properties should be performed. Contingencies for less-than-most-likely performance should be incorporated into the design of the cover system. Particular consideration should be given to variations in the magnitude of differential settlement as well as the time required to reach 90% consolidation. In light of the particularly large range in the coefficients of consolidation already presented by the Licensee, it can be misleading to cite or use “average” values when discussing or planning other activities (for example, see the monitoring section of the report (sub-Appendix I of Appendix D) which states, “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.” All references to settlement magnitude, rate, and duration should be provided as ranges. Given the erratic nature exhibited in the existing settlement monitoring data, it is recommended that the monitoring process be reviewed and revised to assure greater accuracy. As a minimum, the data should be reviewed as soon as it is gathered and its quality be checked by plotting it with previous data and making certain that the data makes sense (i.e., is consistent with expected trends; not showing significant amounts of upward displacement, for example). Questionable data should be confirmed or replaced with new measurements. Without such quality control measures, it may become difficult or impossible to demonstrate that 90% consolidation has been reached and that cover materials can be placed. It is suggested that statements such as the following from page I-2 of sub-Appendix I of Appendix D: “typically less than 0.1 feet (30 mm) of cumulative settlement over a 12 month period is acceptable” be avoided because such statements might be mistakenly substituted for the real requirement of 90% consolidation. The Licensee’s assessment of settlement only addresses primary settlement and does not consider secondary settlement effects (i.e., creep) or seismically-induced settlement of the tailings. Secondary settlement and seismically induced settlement of the tailings (if any) and their subsequent effects on the cover system should be assessed. Assessment of settlement under seismic conditions is dependent upon the Licensee’s seismic hazard analysis. Any revisions to the seismic hazard analysis may necessitate revisions to such an assessment. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 49 of 117 NUREG-1620 (NRC 2003), Section 2.3.3, specifies that: “The analysis of tailings settlement will be acceptable if it meets the following criteria: (1) Computation of immediate settlement follows the procedure recommended in NAVFAC DM–7.1 (Department of the Navy, 1982). If a different procedure is used, the basis for the procedure is adequately explained. The procedure recommended in NAVFAC DM–7.1 (Department of the Navy, 1982) for calculation of immediate settlement is adequate if applied incrementally to account for different stages of tailings emplacement. If this method is used, the reviewer should verify that the computation of incremental tailings loading and the width of the loaded area, as well as the determination of the undrained modulus and Poisson’s ratio, have been computed and documented. Settlement of tailings arises from compression of soil layers within the disposal cell and in the underlying materials. Because compression of sands occurs rapidly, compression of sand layers in the disposal cell and foundations must be considered in the assessment of immediate settlement. However, the contribution of immediate settlement to consolidation settlement cannot be ignored. Clay layers and slime undergo instantaneous elastic compression controlled by their undrained stiffness as well as long-term inelastic compression controlled by the processes of consolidation and creep (NRC, 1983a). (2) Each of the following is appropriately considered in calculating stress increments for assessment of consolidation settlement: (a) Decrease in overburden pressure from excavation (b) Increase in overburden pressure from tailings emplacement\ (c) Excess pore-pressure generated within the disposal cell (d) Changes in ground-water levels from dewatering of the tailings (e) Any change in ground-water levels from the reclamation action (3) Material properties and thicknesses of compressible soil layers used in stress change and volume change calculations for assessment of consolidation settlement are representative of in situ conditions at the site. (4) Material properties and thicknesses of embankment zones used in stress change and volume change calculations are consistent with as-built conditions of the disposal cell. (5) Values of pore pressure within and beneath the disposal cell used in settlement analyses are consistent with initial and post-construction hydrologic conditions at the site. (6) Methods used for settlement analyses are appropriate for the disposal cell and soil conditions at the site. Contributions to settlement by drainage of mill tailings and by consolidation/compression of slimes and sands are considered. Both instantaneous and time-dependent components of total and differential settlements are appropriately considered in the analyses (NRC, 1983a,b,c). The procedure recommended in NAVFAC DM–7.1 (Department of the Navy, 1982) for calculation of secondary compression is adequate. (7) The disposal cell is divided into appropriate zones, depending on the field conditions, for assessment of differential settlement, and appropriate settlement magnitudes are calculated and assigned to each zone. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 07/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Settlement and Potential for Cover Slope Reversal and/or Cover Layer Cracking Page 50 of 117 (8) Results of settlement analyses are properly documented and are related to assessment of overall behavior of the reclaimed pile. (9) An adequate analysis of the potential for development of cracks in the radon/infiltration barrier as a result of differential settlements is provided (Lee and Shen, 1969).” REFERENCES DOE (U.S. Department of Energy). 1989. Technical Approach Document, Revision II. UMTRA-DOE/AL 050425.0002. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments, Technical Guidance Document, EPA/530-SW-89-047, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, D.C. URL: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:VEVCaJfyPDQJ:nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cg i%3FDockey%3D100019HC.txt+site:epa.gov+EPA+Final+Covers+Guidance&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk &gl=us. EPA 1991. Seminar Publication, Design and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. EPA/625/4- 91/025.May 1991, 208 pp. EPA 2004. (Draft) Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. U.S EPA 540-R-04-007, OSWER 9283.1-26. April 2004, 421 pp. URL: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10074PP.txt. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2003. “Standard Review Plan (NUREG–1620) for Staff Reviews of Reclamation Plans for Mill Tailings Sites Under Title II of The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act”, NUREG-1620, June, 2003. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 08/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Erosion Stability Evaluation Page 51 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A CRITERION 4; INT 08/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS –EROSION STABILITY EVALUATION REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: “The following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of above or below grade: … (c) Embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stability. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified. (d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels. Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The Executive Secretary will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile. The following factors must be considered in establishing the final rock cover design to avoid displacement of rock particles by human and animal traffic or by natural process, and to preclude undercutting and piping: • Shape, size, composition, and gradation of rock particles (excepting bedding material average particles size must be at least cobble size or greater); • Rock cover thickness and zoning of particles by size; and • Steepness of underlying slopes. Individual rock fragments must be dense, sound, and resistant to abrasion, and must be free from cracks, seams, and other defects that would tend to unduly increase their destruction by water and frost actions. Weak, friable, or laminated aggregate may not be used. Rock covering of slopes may be unnecessary where top covers are very thick (or less); bulk cover materials have inherently favorable erosion resistance characteristics; and, there is negligible drainage catchment area upstream of the pile and good wind protection as described in points (a) and (b) of this criterion. Furthermore, all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in slope gradient. In addition to rock cover on slopes, areas toward which surface runoff might be directed must be well protected with substantial rock cover (rip rap). In addition to providing for stability of the impoundment system itself, overall stability, erosion potential, and August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 08/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Erosion Stability Evaluation Page 52 of 117 geomorphology of surrounding terrain must be evaluated to assure that there are not ongoing or potential processes, such as gully erosion, which would lead to impoundment instability. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Section 3.3.5 of the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0 and Section 4.9 and Appendix G to Appendix D (Updated Tailings Cover Design Report), and Drawings TRC-1 through TRC-8 to the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0: Please provide the following: 1. To further confirm the appropriateness and currency of the calculated Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) value and as used, for example, in the ET cover design erosion protection rock rip rap sizing calculations, please provide a revised PMP calculation updating the PMP distribution that incorporates information from the following documents, in addition to HMR 49 (Hansen et al.1984): • “2002 Update for Probable Maximum Precipitation, Utah 72 Hour Estimates to 5,000 sq. mi”. – March 2003 Jensen 2003); and • “Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates for Short Duration, Small Area Storms in Utah” – October 1995 (Jensen 1995) Response 1 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): The local-storm Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) events used to calculate the peak discharges for evaluation of erosional stability were the six-hour duration PMP (with a precipitation total of 10.0 inches) and the one-hour duration PMP (with a precipitation total of 8.3 inches). These events were determined for the site area using HMR No. 49 (Hansen et al. 1984). These PMP values were evaluated for appropriateness using the two references listed above by Jensen (1995 and 2003) and the updated calculations were provided as Attachment B of the May 31, 2012 response. The updated PMP values are 8.3 and 9.6 for the one-hour and six-hour duration PMP, respectively. 2. Using the revised PMP information obtained from Item 1 above, provide revised calculations of required rock rip rap sizes for the cover sideslope areas using the updated method developed for round-shaped rip rap as described in Abt et al. 2008. Update and revise other erosion protection calculation presented in Appendix G, as required and appropriate, to reflect the revised PMP determination. Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the previous response document dated May 31, 2012. There are no modifications required to the erosion protection calculations as a result of updating the PMP calculations. The procedure provided in Abt et al. (2008) has not been approved or adopted by the NRC for sizing round-shaped riprap (personal communication with Dr. Steven Abt on May 12, 2012). The latest NRC guidance for sizing round-shaped riprap is the method presented in Abt and Johnson (1991) and referenced in NUREG-1623 (NRC, 2002). The erosional stability analyses have been updated to incorporate the use of angular rock on the embankments, as well as to revise the riprap sizing on the embankment slopes for non-accumulating flows. The results of the analyses are provided in August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 08/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Erosion Stability Evaluation Page 53 of 117 Attachment C as a revised Appendix G that will be included in the next version of the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan). References for Response 2 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Abt, S., 2012. Personal communication from Steven Abt, Colorado State University, to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., May 12. Abt, S., and Johnson, T. 1991. Riprap Design for Overtopping Flow, Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 117, No. 8, August. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2002 “Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stability”, NUREG-1623, September. 3. Please provide additional calculations to estimate the magnitude and location of a potential gully intrusion into each soil-covered portion of the proposed cover system (e.g., using the procedure described in Thornton and Abt 2008). Demonstrate that excluding rock (gravel) particles from the currently proposed flattest (0.1 % and 0.5%) top slope areas would adequately protect against sheet flow under potential precipitation conditions and would adequately control longer- term rill and/or gully initiation and development. Provide information on required “overdesign” of the cover thickness needed to accommodate maximum predicted gully depths and locations. Response 3 (May 31, 2012 and August, 15, 2012): The gully intrusion analysis procedure described in Thornton and Abt (2008), as well as the precursor gully analysis procedure developed by Abt and documented in Appendix B of NUREG-1623 (NRC, 2002) are intended for soil-covered embankment slopes. The procedure is not applicable to the flatter top slope only (personal communication with Dr. Steven Abt on May 12, 2012). The top slopes have been designed to meet erosional stability using the Temple method as presented in Appendix A of NUREG-1623 (NRC, 2002). Gully intrusion analysis was not conducted for the side slopes which have been designed with rock protection. References for Response 3 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Abt, S., 2012. Personal communication from Steven Abt, Colorado State University, to Melanie Davis, MWH Americas, Inc., May 12. Thornton, C., and Abt, S., 2008. “Gully Intrusion into Reclaimed Slope: Long-Term Time-Average Calculation Procedure”, Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 1, March 2008, pp. 15-23. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 2002 “Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stability”, NUREG-1623, September. 4. Provide additional detailed cross sections showing every interface that will occur between sidelope cover layers and topslope cover layers. Demonstrate that all applicable filter criteria will be met for each interface between each topslope cover layer component and the proposed granular filter layer on the sideslope, including standard filter gradation criteria as well as applicable permeability filter criteria (e.g., for filter layer underlying riprap on sideslope areas). Consider filter criteria for preventing migration of granular materials into an adjacent coarser grained granular layer (e.g., Nelson et al. 1986, Equation 4.35); for preventing piping of finer grained cohesionless soil particles into an adjacent coarser-grained material layer (e.g., Cedegren 1989, Equation 5.3); and for preventing erosion of a finer-grained material layer from occurring over the long term as a result of flows in an adjacent coarser (filter zone) layer (e.g., August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 08/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Erosion Stability Evaluation Page 54 of 117 Nelson et al. 1986, Equation 4.36). Include consideration of different specific filter stability criteria (e.g., NRCS 1994, Tables 26-1 and 26-2) for determining the maximum allowable D15 of a granular filter layer material for preventing erosion of any adjacent layer (e.g., sacrificial soil layer) consisting of fine-grained/finer-grained particles, as a function of soil type. Address applicable filter permeability criteria for the filter layer in the sideslope cover system, including Table 26-3 of NRCS 1994. Response 4 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the previous response document dated May 31, 2012. The Drawings will be revised to show include the filter and riprap layers. The filter gradation requirements were determined using NRCS (1994) as documented in Appendix G of Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan. These filter material gradation requirements were updated based on the results of laboratory tests conducted on additional samples of cover borrow material collected in April, 2012. The results are provided in Attachment C. The procedure from NRCS (1994) was used to determine the filter gradation limits. In addition, criteria provided in Nelson et al. (1986) and Cedegren (1989) were evaluated for the filter gradation limits. Reference for Response 4 (August 15, 2012): Cedegren, H.R., 1989. Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets. Equation 5.3. 3rd Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), 1994. Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Engineering Handbook, Part 633, Chapter 26, October. Nelson, J., S. Abt, R. Volpe, D. van Zyl, N. Hinkle, and W. Staub, 1986. "Methodologies for Evaluation of Long-term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments." NUREG/CR-4620, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June. 5. Provide revised cover system cross sections to include a thicker riprap layer on the cover sideslope areas (i.e., minimum thickness of 1.5 times the D50 of the rock rip size of 7.4 inches, or the D100 of the rock rip rap materials, whichever is greater) to bring the cover design into compliance with recommendations contained in Section 2.1.2 of NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002). Response 5 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the previous response document dated May 31, 2012. The Drawings will be updated to show a minimum thickness of 1.5 times the D50 of the rock riprap size, or the D100 whichever is greater. The drawing updates will be included in the next revision of the Reclamation Plan after approval of the final cover design. 6. Provide revised construction drawings for the final cover that preclude the presence of low areas that have the potential for experiencing future concentrated flows (e.g., portion of cover overlying Cell 2 as depicted on Section B-3 on Drawing TRC-7) and that avoid areas having abrupt changes in slope gradient across the cells, (e.g., areas of cover having proposed 5h:1v slopes August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 08/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Erosion Stability Evaluation Page 55 of 117 shown on Sections B-3 and C-3 on Drawings TRC-6 and TRC-7 and Detail 7/8 on Drawing TRC- 8, etc..) to be consistent with UAC R313-24-4 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4. Response 6 (May 31, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the previous response document dated May 31, 2012. Section B-3 on Drawing TRC-7 will be revised to show the correct direction of the 0.5 percent slope to be toward the south to match the plan view shown on Drawing TRC-3. The 5H:1V slopes shown on the cover top slope will be revised to be 10H:1V. The drawing updates will be included in the next revision of the Reclamation Plan after approval of the final cover design. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: When determining the PMP for facilities such as High Hazard and Moderate Hazard dams, the State of Utah currently requires the use of HMR 49, which DUSA has used in Attachment G to the Reclamation Plan 4.0 (Denison 2009) and referenced in Appendix D to the Reclamation Plan 5.0 (Denison 2011), but also in conjunction with the use of two other reports: (1) the “2002 Update for Probable Maximum Precipitation, Utah 72 Hour Estimates to 5,000 sq. mi. – March 2003” and (2) “Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates for Short Duration, Small Area Storms in Utah – October 1995.” Although these two methods were developed (by the Utah Climate Center) for estimating PMF conditions for design of dams, these methods are considered to be more representative of actual meteorological conditions in Utah than those considered in HMR 49. The erosion protection calculations presented in Appendix G (Erosion Stability Evaluation) should to be revised as needed to reflect the revised PMP determination findings, as appropriate, to demonstrate that applicable erosion protection requirements will be met. The Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) was used (Appendix G to Appendix D to the Reclamation Plan) to evaluate erosion losses from the topslope areas of the cover due to sheet flow but does not consider the potential for gully development or intrusion due to the topographic features of the tailings area which are assumed to remain constant with time (Nelson 1986). Although the Temple method (Appendix D) was appropriately used to evaluate the erosional stability of portions of the cover comprised of “topsoil and vegetation” and “topsoil mixed with gravel” –covered slopes, the method assumes only minor channeling, gullying, or rilling. Due to the relatively large and flat nature of the currently proposed topslope areas, these assumptions may or may not reflect actual conditions that are expected to occur. It is possible that less or more severe flow concentrations would occur and vegetation would or would not provide significant protection. Research has demonstrated that if localized erosion and gullying occurs, damage to unprotected soil covers may occur rapidly, probably in a time period shorter than 200 years (NUREG-1623 [NRC 2002]). It needs to be demonstrated that all slopes are designed to meet NUREG-1623 requirements, i.e., that “Soil slopes of a reclaimed tailings impoundment should be designed to be stable and thus inhibit the initiation, development, and growth of gullies.” A procedure developed by Thornton and Abt (2008), which builds upon a preliminary procedure developed by Abt et al. 1997 (as discussed in Appendix B of NUREG-1623), provides a means of estimating the magnitude and location of a potential gully intrusion into the flat topslope areas of the cover. Additional descriptive information and supporting calculations need to be provided to demonstrate that all applicable filter criteria are met for all topslope cover/ sideslope cover layer interfaces. Acceptable filter sizing criteria for preventing migration of the selected filter/bedding materials into the riprap and for minimizing or preventing erosion of the soil layer below the filter/bedding layer, and for meeting filter August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 08/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Erosion Stability Evaluation Page 56 of 117 permeability criteria are described in NUREG/CR-4620 (Nelson et al. 1986), Cedegren 1989 and NCRS 1994. In addition, currently, it is unclear from Drawings TRC-1 through TRC-8 of the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 as to whether filter blankets or bedding layers are or are not included in some areas, for example, areas along toes of slopes, transition areas, diversion ditches and channels, stilling areas, and flow impact areas, which are typically areas described in NUREG-1623 as areas where filters are generally recommended. A demonstration of long-term layer stability is needed to justify the omission of a filter/bedding blanket in the final cover system and in any such areas. Cross sections TRC-6 and TRC-7 provided in the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 depict abrupt slope changes in the tailings cover when crossing Cell 2 to Cell 1 and Cell 2 to Cell 3. The cross sections should be revised to meet the above UAC R313-24-4, 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4 “….all impoundment surfaces must be contoured to avoid areas of concentrated surface runoff or abrupt or sharp changes in slope gradient.” NUREG-1623 (NRC 2002), Section 2.1.2 recommends that the minimum required thickness of a rock riprap layer be no less than 1.5 times the D50 of the rock riprap materials, or the D100 of the rock rip rap materials, whichever is greater. REFERENCES: Abt, S.R., Thornton, C.I., Batka, J.H., and Johnson, T.L. 1997. “Investigation of Gully Stabilization Methods with Launching Stone: Pilot Laboratory Tests” Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. February 1997. Abt, S.R., Thornton, C.I., Gallegos, H., and Ullmann, C. 2008. “Round-Shaped Riprap Stabilization in Overtopping Flow,” Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 8, August 2008, pp. 1035–1041. Bertram, G.E. 1940. An Experimental Investigation of Protective Filters. Graduate School of Engineering, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Soil Mechanics Series No. 7. pp. 1-21. Cedegren.H.R. 1989. Seepage, Drainage, and Flow Nets. 3rd Edition. John Wiley $ & Sons, Inc., New York, NY. Denison Mines (USA) Corporation. 2011. Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, September 2011. Hansen, E., Schwarz, F., and Riedel, J. 1984. Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, Colorado River and Great Basin Drainages. Hydrometeorological Report No. 49. U.S Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Reprinted 1984. Jensen, D. 1995. 2002 Update for Probable Maximum Precipitation, Utah 72 Hour Estimates to 5,000 sq. mi. - March 2003. Utah Climate Center. Jensen, D. 2003. Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates for Short Duration, Small Area Storms in Utah - October 1995. Utah Climate Center. Nelson, J.D., Abt, S.R., Volpe, R.L, van Zyl, D., Hinkle, N.E., and Staub, W.P. 1986. Methodologies for Evaluating Long-Term Stabilization Designs of Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundments. Prepared for August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 08/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 4: Technical Analysis – Erosion Stability Evaluation Page 57 of 117 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC. NUREG/CR-4620, ORNL/TM-10067. June 1986, 151 pp. NRC 2002. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Design of Erosion Protection for Long-Term Stability”, NUREG-1623, September 2002. NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) 1994. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Part 633, National Engineering Handbook, Chapter 26: Gradation Design of Sand and Gravel Filters. October 1994. Thornton, C., and Abt, S. 2008. “Gully Intrusion into Reclaimed Slope: Long-Term Time-Average calculation Procedure”, Journal of Energy Engineering, Vol. 134, No. 1, March 2008, pp. 15-23. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 09/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Liquefaction Page 58 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV. 5.0; R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A CRITERION 1; INT 09/1: LIQUEFACTION REGULATORY BASIS UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40 Appendix A, Criterion 1: The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). The following site features which will contribute to such a goal or objective must be considered in selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites: • Remoteness from populated areas; • Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and isolation of contaminants from ground-water sources; and • Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term. …While isolation of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding consideration must be given to siting features given the long-term nature of the tailings hazards. Tailings should be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Section 4.8 and Appendices C and F to the Appendix D, Updated Tailings Cover Design Report of the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5: 1. Provide revised liquefaction analyses that rely upon actual site-specific data for the tailings materials, rather than assumed parameters. In doing so, revise the Reclamation Plan to correctly and defensibly characterize tailings properties consistent with these revisions throughout the document. Response 1 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The liquefaction analyses were revised to be applicable for long-term steady-state pore pressure conditions within the tailings, and are consistent with regards to the tailings dewatering analyses. The revised analyses also incorporate the update to the previous seismic study (provided as Attachment A to the May 31, 2012 response document). The weight of the cover system has also been included in the analyses. A constant Standard Penetration Test (SPT) blow count (n-value) of 2 blows in 12 inches (uncorrected) was assumed for the tailings zones that will remain saturated under long- term steady state conditions. An uncorrected n-value of 2 is considered to be a reasonable “lower-bound” estimate of the uncorrected blow counts for saturated tailings based upon a comparison with similar uranium tailings at other sites, and is a more conservative assumption than was used in previous analyses. Previous analyses assumed a constant n-value of 4 to represent the in-situ state of the tailings. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 09/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Liquefaction Page 59 of 117 Unsaturated tailings zones are not be susceptible to liquefaction and were not included in the analyses. The long-term dry density of the tailings was revised to be 90 pcf to be consistent with the value used for the updated radon emanation analyses. The revised liquefaction analyses are provided as Attachment F and summarized in the Table 1. The computed factors of safety against liquefaction range from 1.76 to 2.28. Based on these results, the tailings are judged not considered to be susceptible to earthquake- induced liquefaction during the design seismic event. Table 1. Summary of Liquefaction Results Depth from Top of Cover (ft) Saturated Thickness (ft) CSR CRR7.5 MSF Factor of Safety Cell 2 31.7 0 0.113 0.096 1.77 1.90 34.7 3 0.109 0.096 1.77 1.83 37.7 6 0.104 0.095 1.77 1.79 40.7 9 0.099 0.095 1.77 1.77 43.7 12 0.095 0.095 1.77 1.76 Cell 3 37.0 0 0.085 0.095 1.77 1.97 40.0 3 0.087 0.095 1.77 1.93 43.0 6 0.088 0.095 1.77 1.91 46.0 9 0.088 0.094 1.77 1.90 49.0 12 0.087 0.094 1.77 1.91 Cells 4A/4B 12.0 0.33 0.097 0.099 1.77 1.82 15.0 0.33 0.096 0.099 1.77 1.82 18.0 0.33 0.095 0.098 1.77 1.83 21.0 0.33 0.094 0.097 1.77 1.83 24.0 0.33 0.093 0.097 1.77 1.84 27.0 0.33 0.092 0.096 1.77 1.86 30.0 0.33 0.090 0.096 1.77 1.88 33.0 0.33 0.089 0.095 1.77 1.90 36.0 0.33 0.087 0.095 1.77 1.94 39.0 0.33 0.084 0.095 1.77 1.99 42.0 0.33 0.082 0.094 1.77 2.05 45.0 0.33 0.079 0.094 1.77 2.12 48.0 0.33 0.076 0.094 1.77 2.19 51.0 0.33 0.073 0.094 1.77 2.28 August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 09/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Liquefaction Page 60 of 117 2. Correct apparent errors and conduct revised analyses using parameter values that are based on site-specific data. Correct discrepancies between calculated results and summarized, reported results. Response 2 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response 1. 3. Demonstrate that conditions assumed for liquefaction analyses are consistent with or conservative compared to results of tailings dewatering analyses. If this is not true, revise liquefaction analyses to be consistent with or conservative compared to results of tailings dewatering analyses, report results, and demonstrate that impoundments will remain stable with regard to liquefaction. Response 3 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The revised liquefaction analyses are consistent with regards to the tailings dewatering analyses. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY NUREG-1620 (NRC 2003), Section 2.2.3, specifies the following with respect to slope stability analyses and assessment of liquefaction potential: “…The analysis of slope stability will be acceptable if it meets the following criteria: …(3) Appropriate analyses considering the effect of seismic ground motions on slope stability are presented. …(j) Where there is potential for liquefaction, changes in pore pressure from cyclic loading are considered in the analysis to assess the effect of pore pressure increase on the stress-strain characteristics of the soil and the post-earthquake stability of the slopes. Liquefaction potential is reviewed using Section 2.4 of this review plan. Evaluations of dynamic properties and shear strengths for the tailings, underlying foundation material, radon barrier cover, and base liner system are based on representative materials properties obtained through appropriate field and laboratory tests (NRC 1978, 1979)…. NUREG-1620 (NRC 2003), Section 2.4.3, specifies that: “The analysis of the liquefaction potential will be acceptable if the following criteria are met: (1) Applicable laboratory and/or field tests are properly conducted (NRC, 1978, 1979; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1970, 1972). (2) Data for all relevant parameters for assessing liquefaction potential are adequately collected and the variability has been quantified. (3) Methods used for interpretation of test data and assessment of liquefaction potential are consistent with current practice in the geotechnical engineering profession (Seed and Idriss, 1971, 1982; National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, 1997). An assessment of the potential adverse effects that complete or partial liquefaction could have on the stability of the embankment may be based on cyclic triaxial test data obtained from undisturbed soil samples taken from the critical zones August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 09/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Liquefaction Page 61 of 117 in the site area (Seed and Harder, 1990; Shannon & Wilson, Inc. and Agbabian-Jacobsen Associates, 1972). (4) If procedures based on laboratory tests combined with ground response analyses are used, laboratory test results are corrected to account for the difference between laboratory and field conditions (NRC, 1978; Naval Facility Engineering Command, 1983). (5) The time history of earthquake ground motions used in the analysis is consistent with the design seismic event. (6) If the potential for complete or partial liquefaction exists, the effects such liquefaction could have on the stability of slopes and settlement of tailings are adequately quantified. (7) If a potential for global liquefaction is identified, mitigation measures consistent with current engineering practice or redesign of tailings ponds/embankments are proposed and the proposed measures provide reasonable assurance that the liquefaction potential has been eliminated or mitigated. (8) If minor liquefaction potential is identified and is evaluated to have only a localized effect that may not directly alter the stability of embankments, the effect of liquefaction is adequately accounted for in analyses of both differential and total settlement and is shown not to compromise the intended performance of the radon barrier. Additionally, the disposal cell is shown to be capable of withstanding the liquefaction potential associated with the expected maximum ground acceleration from earthquakes. The licensee may use post-earthquake stability methods (e.g., Ishihara and Yoshimine, 1990) based on residual strengths and deformation analysis to examine the effects of liquefaction potential. Furthermore, the effect of potential localized lateral displacement from liquefaction, if any, is adequately analyzed with respect to slope stability and disposal cell integrity. The liquefaction analysis presented by the Licensee is based on the procedures presented in Youd et al. (2001). While newer methods have been introduced and are being used, this method is still an acceptable, state-of-practice method provided that borderline finer-grained soils are appropriately assessed (see Boulanger and Idriss, 2006; Bray and Sancio, 2006; Boulanger and Idriss, 2011). Aside from the earthquake magnitude and ground acceleration, the most important parameter in the analysis is the in-situ penetration resistance parameter (which in this case is an SPT blowcount) which provides a measure of the soil’s resistance to liquefaction. In the Licensee’s analysis, this SPT blowcount has been assumed to be 4 without any substantial justification – the justification provided in the report is that the analyst considered the tailings to be “loose” and that such a term is often correlated with a blowcount in the range of 4 to 10. However, it seems that analyst could have alternatively assumed that the tailings were “very loose,” leading to a blowcount in the range of 0 to 4, thus significantly affecting the outcome of the analysis. Also, elsewhere in the report (when approximating the shear strength of the drained tailings), the Licensee assumes that the tailings have a relative density of near zero, and a relative density of zero and a blow count of 4 are typically inconsistent. A similar issue with consistency appears to exist in the characterization of the tailings’ unit weight where dry and saturated unit weights of 86.3 and 117.1 pcf, respectively, are presented in Section F.2.2 of sub- Appendix F in Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0, whereas a dry unit weight of 74.3 pcf is presented in Section C.2.4 of sub-Appendix C of Appendix D). Consistent characterization of the tailings throughout the report seems to be needed, and more importantly, with respect to liquefaction, a more substantiated blowcount describing the tailings is needed. If data doesn’t exist, it must be collected, not manufactured. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 09/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 1: Liquefaction Page 62 of 117 It is noted that the results presented in Table F.5 ‘Summary of Liquefaction Results’ do not agree with the calculated values shown in Attachment F.3. Further, it appears from the text that the Licensee intended to have the cover in place for the analysis (the Licensee should clearly explain the configuration of the impoundment and tailings reflected in the calculations); however, the weight of the cover seems to have been omitted from the calculated total and effective vertical stresses. Also, if the depth parameter “z” in the calculations is intended to reference from the top of the tailings as the datum, and given the stated “depth from top of tailings to water surface”, it appears that effective stresses have been calculated incorrectly. Calculation of the overburden correction factor should also be checked. Assessment of liquefaction is dependent upon the Licensee’s seismic hazard analysis. Any revisions to the seismic hazard analysis may necessitate revisions to this assessment. Also, the applicability of the liquefaction hazard analysis is dependent upon the outcome of tailings dewatering analyses, and the Licensee should demonstrate that the results such analyses are appropriately interpreted (i.e., are at least consistent with, if not conservative) for the liquefaction hazard analysis. REFERENCES Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2006). “Liquefaction susceptibility criteria for silts and clays.” J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 11, pp. 1413-1426. Bray, J.D. and Sancio, R.B. (2006). “Assessment of the liquefaction susceptibility of fine grained soils.” J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165-1177. Boulanger, R.W. and Idriss, I.M. (2011). “Cyclic failure and liquefaction: Current issues.” Proc. Fifth International Conf. of Earthquake Geotechnical Eng., Santiago, Chile. MWH Americas 2011. Appendix C - Radon Emanation Modeling, and Appendix F – Settlement and Liquefaction Analysis, contained in Appendix D, Updated Tailings Cover Design Report, White Mesa Mill, September 2011 to the Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Rev. 5.0, September 2011. NRC 1982. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide 3.8; Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills”, Washington DC, October 1982. NRC 2001. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs.” Washington, DC, 2001. NRC 2003. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “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.” Washington DC, June 2003. Youd, T. L., Idriss, I. M., Andrus, R. D., Arango, I., Castro, G., Christian, J. T., Dobry, R., Finn, W. D. L., Harder, L. F., Jr., Hynes, M. E., Ishihara, K., Koester, J. P., Liao, S. S. C., Marcuson, W. F., III, Martin, G. R., Mitchell, J. K., Moriwaki, Y., Power, M. S., Robertson, P. K., Seed, R. B., and Stokoe, K. H., II. (2001). “Liquefaction resistance of soils: summary report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF workshops on evaluation of liquefaction resistance of soils.” J. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Eng., ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-833. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 63 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6; INT 10/1: TECHNICAL ANALYSES - FROST PENETRATION ANALYSIS REGULATORY BASIS: Refer to R313-25-8(4). Analyses of the long-term stability of the disposal site shall be based upon analyses of active natural processes including erosion, mass wasting, slope failure, settlement of wastes and backfill, infiltration through covers over disposal areas and adjacent soils, and surface drainage of the disposal site. The analyses shall provide reasonable assurance that there will not be a need for ongoing active maintenance of the disposal site following closure. UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1): “In disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of this criterion. In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long- term intervals.” NUREG-1620 specifies that “Reasonable assurance [shall be] provided that the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1), which requires that the design of the disposal facility provide reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, have been met.” INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Section 4.3 of Appendix D (Updated Tailings Cover Design Report) and Appendix B (Freeze/Thaw Modeling) to Appendix D to the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0: 1. Please revise freeze/thaw analyses to incorporate the following: a. Extrapolation of frost depth to recurrence interval to a minimum period of up to 1,000 years, to the extent practicable, or, to not less than 200 years, using a Gumbel extreme statistics (probability functions) approach (e.g., Smith and Rager 2002; Smith 1999; Yevjevich 1982). b. Additional justification for selection of an N -factor (surface temperature correction factor) of 0.6, instead of an N –factor of 0.7, based on published recommendations (e.g., DOE 1989). c. Additional justification that using climate data for Grand Junction, Colorado in the Berggren Model Formula (BMF) is representative of site conditions at the White Mesa site Address the considerably lower elevation and average warmer temperatures of Grand Junction compared to the White Mesa site. Either (1) prepare and report results of the BMF calculations using a default location having an elevation and Design Freezing Index equal to or greater than August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 64 of 117 those of the White Mesa site AND mean average temperatures equal to or less than those of the White Mesa site OR (2) justify that the Grand Junction data is applicable and representative as input to the BMF calculations for the White Mesa site. Response 1 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The freeze/thaw analyses have been revised to use Gumbel extreme statistics approach for a time period of 200 years. The revised analyses are provided as Attachment C to this document. An N-factor of 0.7 and climate data from the Blanding, Utah was used for the analyses. The resulting frost penetration depth was estimated as 32 inches. The analyses were provided as Attachment C to the May 31, 2012 response document. The analyses will be revised after approval of the conceptual final cover design to be consistent with the revised cover design presented the responses to Interrogatory 12/1 and Attachment H. 2. Based on the results of the revised frost penetration analysis, justify revised soil parameter values for soils within the cover system above the projected frost penetration depth considering the effects of repeated freezing and thawing over the recurrence interval considered (referred to in Item 1.a above). Use these parameter values in performance assessment modeling, including infiltration modeling and radon attenuation modeling, consistent with recommendation provided in Sections 2.5 and 5.1 of NUREG-1620 (NRC 2003). Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The revised infiltration and radon emanation modeling reflects potential modifications to the hydraulic and physical properties of the cover due to freeze/thaw processes based on recommendations provided in Benson et al. (2011). The results of the modeling are provided as part of the second response document to the Revised ICTM Interrogatories. Reference for Response 2 (August 15, 2012): Benson, C.H., W.H. Albright, D.O. Fratta, J.M. Tinjum, E. Kucukkirca, S.H. Lee, J. Scalia, P.D. Schlicht, and X. Wang, 2011. Engineered Covers for Waste Containment: Changes in Engineering Properties and Implications for Long-Term Performance Assessment, Volume 1 and 2, NUREG/CR-7028, Report Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December. 3. If applicable after addressing the instructions stated above, revise Appendix B to Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan to ensure that all intended text is present in the document. Response 3 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Appendix B to Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan will be updated to incorporate the revised freeze/thaw analyses for the next version of the Reclamation Plan. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 65 of 117 BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The Division acknowledges that the Modified Berggren Formula has been used to estimate the depth of frost penetration at the site, relying upon input from a built-in long-term weather database. However, the input parameters do not account for extreme climate conditions. In addition, in Appendix B, it is noted that the mean annual temperature for Blanding given by Dames and Moore (1978) is 49.8 degrees F and the mean annual temperature for Grand Junction, CO, is 53.1 degrees F. The Grand Junction mean annual temperature used in the White Mesa calculations is higher, i.e, less conservative, than Blanding’s mean temperature. Grand Junction’s elevation is also considerably lower than that of either Blanding or the White Mesa site. The use of a Gumbel extreme value statistics approach provides an accepted means for extrapolating a worst case value from a limited set of data. This technical approach has been successfully applied at other similar facilities (e.g., Monticello, Utah tailings repository cover – 200 year recurrence interval; Crescent Junction, Utah tailings repository cover- 1,000 year recurrence interval [e.g., see NRC 2008]). Extending the recurrence interval for the frost depth penetration analysis further informs predictions of potential future maximum frost penetration depths and allows insights into the potential risk reduction afforded to performance assessment predictions made for evaluating the performance of the cover system over long term performance periods. U.S.D.O.E. (1989), based on recommendations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL), and Smith (1999) recommend that an N-factor of 0.7 be used for landfill cover designs. Additional information should therefore be provided to support the selection and use of an N-factor value of 0.6, rather than 0.7, in the calculation, or alternatively, an N- factor value of 0.7 should be used in the calculation. Section numbers in Appendix B of Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan suggest that sections are missing or that the section numbering is incorrect. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corporation. 2011. Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Appendix D: September 2011. NRC 2003. NUREG-1620: 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. Washington DC, June 2003. NRC 2008. “Summary of Changes to Moab Disposal Cell Calculations”. NRC ADAMS Website: Document Accession Number ML081700262. Smith, G.M., and Rager, R.E. 2002. “Protective Layer Design in Landfill Covers Based on Frost Protection”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 9, September 1, 2002, pp. 794-799. Smith, G.M., 1999. Soil Insulation for Barrier Layer Protection in Landfill Covers, in Proceedings from the Solid Waste Association of North America’s 4th Annual Landfill Symposium, Denver, Colorado, June 28-30, 1999. U.S.D.O.E. 1989. Technical Approach Document, Rev. II, UMTRA-DOE/AL 050425.0002, Albuquerque, New Mexico. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 66 of 117 Yevjevich, V. 1982. Probability and Statistics in Hydrology, 3rd Edition. Water Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 67 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A; INT 11/1: VEGETATION AND BIOINTRUSION EVALUATION AND REVEGETATION PLAN REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 1:-The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). The following site features which will contribute to such a goal or objective must be considered in selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites: • Remoteness from populated areas; • Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and isolation of contaminants from ground-water sources; and • Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term. • The site selection process must be an optimization to the maximum extent reasonably achievable in terms of these features. In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis must be given to isolation of tailings or wastes, a matter having long-term impacts, as opposed to consideration only of short-term convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While isolation of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding consideration must be given to siting features given the long-term nature of the tailings hazards. Tailings should be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site. UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 4: The following site and design criteria must be adhered to whether tailings or wastes are disposed of above or below grade: (a) Upstream rainfall catchment areas must be minimized to decrease erosion potential and the size of the floods which could erode or wash out sections of the tailings disposal area. (b) Topographic features should provide good wind protection. (c) Embankment and cover slopes must be relatively flat after final stabilization to minimize erosion potential and to provide conservative factors of safety assuring long-term stabililty. The broad objective should be to contour final slopes to grades which are as close as possible to those which would be provided if tailings were disposed of below grade; this could, for example, lead to slopes of about 10 horizontal to 1 vertical (10h:1v) or less steep. In general, slopes should not be steeper than about 5h:1v. Where steeper slopes are proposed, reasons why a slope less steep than 5h:1v would be impracticable should be provided, and compensating factors and conditions which make such slopes acceptable should be identified. (d) A full self-sustaining vegetative cover must be established or rock cover employed to reduce wind and water erosion to negligible levels. Where a full vegetative cover is not likely to be self-sustaining due to climatic or other conditions, such as in semi-arid and arid regions, rock cover must be employed on slopes of the impoundment system. The August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 68 of 117 Executive Secretary will consider relaxing this requirement for extremely gentle slopes such as those which may exist on the top of the pile…. UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1): In disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of this Criterion. In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long-term intervals. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Section 1.7.1, 3.3.1.0 and Appendices D and J of the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0: Please provide the following: 1. Provide additional information (e.g., in the form of a survey and additional documentation of existing animal and vegetation species that exist at the White Mesa site and nearby surrounding region at this time to update the older information provided earlier. Response 1 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. A plant and animal survey was conducted at the White Mesa site and surrounding area in June 2012 to update information provided in the Dames and Moore Environmental Report (1978). Plant cover was estimated along point intercept transects in the Big Sagebrush community type and through this survey the plant species that exist at the site and surrounding area have been updated and included in a revision of Appendix D to the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0). The revised appendix is provided as Attachment G. A survey of burrowing animals was also conducted with a focus on prairie dogs, badgers and northern pocket gophers. This survey was conducted in both the Big Sagebrush and Juniper communities either on site on in the surrounding area. Results for this survey are also presented in Attachment G. 2. Update the list of plant and animal species to include plant and animal species (e.g. burrowing animals) that could reasonably be expected to inhabit or colonize the White Mesa site within the required performance period of the embankment (1,000 years, and in no case less than 200 years). In revising these lists, account for the types of vegetation and soils present in the vicinity of the White Mesa site and proximity to the high quality northern pocket gopher and badger habitat indicated in Utah distribution maps (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources). Response 2 (August 15, 2012): August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 69 of 117 This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. A plant and animal survey was conducted at the White Mesa site and surrounding area in June 2012. The information from these surveys was used to update the list of plant and burrowing animal species that could reasonably be expected to inhabit or colonize the White Mesa site within the required performance period of 200 to 1,000 years. Results of these surveys are included in Attachment G. 3. Please report the estimated range of burrowing depths and burrow densities for animal species found at the site and nearby surrounding region (once the updated study requested above is complete), and for burrowing species that may reasonably be expected to inhabit the site within the required performance period of the embankment (1,000 years, and in no case less than 200 years). Please comment on the root densities provided in Appendix D of the ICTM report. Indicate whether the correct root density units were used in Table D-3 and Figure D-1. Also verify that the correct values were used in the HYDRUS-2D infiltration model, since an erroneously high value of root density could overestimate plant transpiration and underestimate infiltration. Response 3 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The estimated range of burrowing depths and burrow densities for animal species found at the site and nearby surrounding region are reported in Attachment G. The June 2012 animal survey conducted in the area of the Mill site provided burrow densities and an updated literature search was conducted on burrow depths for animal species that may reasonably be expected to inhabit the site within the required performance period. The root densities provided in Appendix D of the Revised Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM) Report are incorrect because of a calculation error. Updated and recalculated root biomass values are shown in Table 1 below. These corrected values were used in the revised HYDRUS-1D infiltration model and results are provided as part of a second response document to the Revised ICTM Report. Table 1. Corrected root biomass (anticipated performance scenario and reduced performance scenario) for the White Mesa Mill Site. Depth (cm) Root Biomass (grams cm-3) Anticipated Performance Root Biomass (grams cm-3) Reduced Performance 0-15 0.11 0.04 15-30 0.17 0.12 30-45 0.035 0.02 45-60 0.023 0.015 60-75 0.021 0.014† 75-90 0.019 0.0 90-107 0.011 0.0 †Maximum rooting depth under the reduced performance scenario would be 68 cm. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 70 of 117 4. Rectify the mischaracterization of two plant species as presented in the two referenced documents (Festuca ovina and common yarrow). Response 4 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The seed mixture proposed for the ET cover at the White Mesa Mill site consists of native and introduced species. The majority of species are native to Utah and two species (Pubescent wheatgrass and sheep fescue) have been introduced to North America. Sheep fescue was introduced from Europe in the 19th century, is commonly found in Utah and highly used as a reclamation species. Pubescent wheatgrass was introduced from Eurasia in 1907 and is also distributed in Utah from reclamation seedings over the past 100 years. Common yarrow (Achillea millefolium, var. occidentalis) is native to North America and is found in Utah, according to the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Plant Database (http://plants.usda.gov/java/). However, seed that is most available for common yarrow (Achillea millefolium) is of an introduced origin and is commonly used in reclamation plantings in Utah and throughout the western U.S. Seed of the native variety, occidentalis, will be used in the seed mixture if seed is available. If the native variety is not available, then the more common introduced variety will be used. Galleta (Hilaria jamesii) has been added to the proposed seed mixture (Table 2), which can be found in the Attachment G. Galleta is a native warm season grass that is very common at the Mill site and makes an excellent addition to the proposed mixture. Table 2. Species and seeding rates proposed for ET cover at the White Mesa Mill Site. Scientific Name Common Name Variety Native/ Introduced Seeding Rate (lbs PLS/acre)† Grasses Pascopyrum smithii Western wheatgrass Arriba Native 3.0 Pseudoroegneria spicata Bluebunch wheatgrass Goldar Native 3.0 Elymus trachycaulus Slender wheatgrass San Luis Native 2.0 Elymus lanceolatus Streambank wheatgrass Sodar Native 2.0 Elymus elymoides Squirreltail Toe Jam Native 2.0 Thinopyrum intermedium Pubescent wheatgrass Luna Introduced‡ 1.0 Achnatherum hymenoides Indian ricegrass Paloma Native 4.0 Poa secunda Sandberg bluegrass Canbar Native 0.5 Festuca ovina Sheep fescue Covar Introduced‡ 1.0 Bouteloua gracilis Blue grama Hachita Native 1.0 Hilaria jamesii Galleta Viva Native 2.0 Forbs Achillea millefolium var. occidentalis Common yarrow No Variety Native 0.5 Artemisia ludoviciana White sage No Variety Native 0.5 Total 23.0 †Seeding rate is for broadcast seed and presented as pounds of pure live seed per acre (lbs PLS/acre). August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 71 of 117 ‡Introduced refers to species that have been ‘introduced’ from another geographic region, typically outside of North America. Also referred to as ‘exotic’ species. 5. Provide additional documentation to support conclusions made regarding the ability of the proposed vegetation to establish at the cover percentages predicted. Also, provide additional discussion regarding the potential sustainability of the cover design and characteristics as proposed relative to changes that could occur due to the effects of natural succession and climate change during the performance period (1,000 years, and in no case less than 200 years). Response 5 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Additional documentation to support conclusions made regarding the ability of the proposed vegetation to achieve predicted cover percentages is provided in the Attachment G. Plant cover was measured in the Big Sagebrush community and results support the predicted cover percentages for the plant community that will be established on the ET cover system. In addition, a more in-depth discussion is presented in Attachment G regarding potential sustainability of the cover design in relation to changes that could occur during natural succession and under possible climate change scenarios. 6. Perform and report results of an additional infiltration sensitivity analysis to address the effects of deep-rooted plants projected by the updated analysis described above. In particular, account for any potentially deep-rooted species to assess the their effects of such deep-rooted species on the characteristics of soil layers in the embankment cover system. Please provide a forecasted percentage of potential species invasions in the ET cover system. Response 6 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Revisions to the HYDRUS-1D infiltration model and results are provided as part of a second response document to the Revised ICTM Report. A discussion of the forecasted percentages of potential species invasions in the ET cover system is provided in Attachment G. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: Burrowing animals have the potential to penetrate the cover system and disturb the waste tailings of a cell. The burrowing animal could disturb the cover system resulting in “channels for movement of water, vapors, roots, and other animals” EPA, Draft Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers, April 2004 [EPA 2004]). The extent of damage caused by animal burrowing depends on the animals burrowing depth ability. Mammals such as the badger and deer mouse have been reported at the site and/or nearby the site and can burrow to depths of 150–230 cm [4.9 to 7.5 ft] (Anderson and Johns 1977, Gano and States 1982, Cline, et al. 1982 and Lindzey 1976) and 50 cm [1.6 ft], respectively (Reynolds and Laundre 1988 and Reynolds and Wakkinen 1987, and Smith, et al. 1997). Moisture content and physical features of the soil can affect burrowing potential (Reichman and Smith 1990). Maximum burrowing depths for animals at or near the site should be identified and appropriate measures taken to August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 72 of 117 protect the cover system, especially the radon barrier layer, from potential long-term damage/disruption by burrowing animals. Although Dames and Moore (1978) did not report pocket gophers and reported badgers only had possibly a minor presence, the type of vegetation and soils present surrounding the facility is typical habitat and Utah distribution maps (Utah Division of Wildlife Resources) show that the facility is within or near the edge of high quality northern pocket gopher and badger habitat. Given the 34 years since the Dames and Moore study, these species could occur now and will likely occur at some point during the next 200 – 1000 years. Their potential presence needs to be acknowledged and considered in the design. Other burrowing species that are not addressed and should be assessed include coyote and red fox. The prairie dog species that could occur in this area is Gunnison’s prairie dog. The statement regarding maximum burrowing depths for Gunnison’s prairie dog does not appear to represent current data, for example Verdolin, Lewis, and Slobodchikoff (2008), which show studies with depths over one meter. The statement that prairie dogs are unlikely to colonize the tailing cells is generally true, but does not consider all potential events that could occur over an extended period of time, such as prolonged drought, fire, or natural succession, that could affect plant cover. The documents provide one reference (Waugh et al. 2008) for the ability to achieve 40% vegetation cover for a long-term average and 30% under drought conditions. More support is needed that this cover can be sustained long-term and under drought conditions. Regional data and/or data on the current plant cover of the grassland vegetation at the White Mesa Mill should be present to support these cover percentages. The ground cover measurements by Dames and Moore 1978 (provided on page 1-125 of Reclamation Plan) are substantially less than 40%, but were collected during a drought and were likely affected by past grazing. The vegetation map and cover data presented in the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 for the vegetation present at the facility are 35 years old and do not represent current conditions. In addition, some of the cells are identified as being partially reclaimed and no information is provided on reclamation methods or success that would support the claim of being able to achieve 40% average cover. Current data should be provided to support the estimates of potential cover expected to be achieved on the tailing cells. More detailed information should be provided on deep-rooted species that currently occur in the study area and that could become established on the tailing cells. There is little information provided on the composition of local plant communities. The plan does not adequately address the potential for natural succession over the 200-1000 year time frame. The use of competitive grasses may exclude sagebrush for several decades, but may not work in perpetuity. Shrub succession in seeded grasslands is a common phenomenon, and appears to be occurring on portions of the seeded grasslands surrounding the White Mesa facility, based on current aerial photographs. There should be a discussion of natural successional processes that could occur. Big sagebrush is the regional climax dominant on deep soils such as the tailing cells will provide. The eventual occurrence of some amount of big sagebrush should be identified as a possibility and the analysis should include an evaluation of the compatibility of big sagebrush root systems with the cover design, including depth of the soil and compacted layers. The highly compacted zone is likely to exclude all or most roots, even for deep rooted species. References could be added to support this. There is a lower potential for establishment of piñon and juniper. According to Dames and Moore (1978), Table 2.8-2, community types identified within the site boundary include Pinion-juniper Woodland, Big Sagebrush, and Controlled Big Sagebrush. Different published references indicate that Big Sagebrush in the western U.S. can exhibit deeper rooting depths (e.g., see Waugh, et al. 1994; Foxx, et al.1984; Klepper, et al. 1985, Reynolds 1990b). The statement in D.4.3 to Appendix D to Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, that “… 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 August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 73 of 117 species to establish and expand their range…” is an oversimplification and does not recognize that these species are the climax species over a large portion of the Intermountain area. While overgrazing has certainly reduced the abundance of perennial grasses and has led to shrub/tree invasion in some areas, there is no evidence that these areas were primarily grassland prior to European settlement. Table D-3 lists root densities that were used in the infiltration modeling. The values range from zero to 6.2 grams per cubic centimeter. The same values are shown graphically in Figure D-1 and again in Appendix G, Figure G-1. It seems unreasonable to have such high root densities when the soil densities are no greater than about 2 grams per cubic centimeter. Clarify whether the units in Table D-3 (g cm-3) are correct. Alternative units might be milligrams (rather than grams) of roots per cubic centimeter or centimeters of root length per cubic centimeter of soil. It appears that all of the conclusions in the analysis of the effects of climate change are based on one 23- year old study. Additional support is needed. In particular, the effects of extended droughts should be addressed in more detail. The documents mischaracterize the native status of two species. Festuca ovina is considered to be introduced and not native throughout the entire lower 48 states (NRCS 2012). Common yarrow includes both introduced and native sub-species. The seed mix should specify the yarrow subspecies that is native to southern Utah. Several statements are made that the seed mix is comprised of natives, while it is actually a mix of native and introduced species. In the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, no information is provided for the Tamarisk-Salix community identified in Section 1.7.1. Based on current photography, they appear to be wetlands. It is unclear how they will be affected by reclamation activities. REFERENCES: Anderson, D. C., and Johns, D.W. 1977. “Predation by Badger on Yellow-Bellied Marmot in Colorado,” Southwestern Naturalist, Vol. 22, pp. 283–284. Cline, J.F.. 1979. Biobarriers Used in Shallow-Burial Ground Stabilization. Technical Report.. Pacific Northwest Laboratory PNL-2918. March 1, 1979. Cline, J. F., K. A. Gano, and L. E. Rogers, 1980, “Loose Rock as Biobarriers in Shallow Land Burial,” Health Physics, Vol. 39, pp. 494–504. Cline, J. F., F.G. Burton, D. A. Cataldo, W. E. Skiens, and K. A. Gano. 1982. Long-Term Biobarriers to Plant and Animal Intrusion of Uranium Tailings, DOE/UMT-0209, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, September 2011. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2004. (Draft) Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers. U.S EPA 540-R-04-007, OSWER 9283.1-26. April 2004, 421 pp. URL: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P10074PP.txt. Foxx, T.S., G.D. Tierney, and J.M. Willimas, 1984. Rooting Depths of Plants Relative to Biological and Environmental Factors, Los Alamos Report LA-10254-MS, November 1984. Gano, K. A. and J. B. States, 1982, Habitat Requirements and Burrowing Depths of Rodents in Relation to Shallow Waste Burial Sites, PNL-4140, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Hanford, Washington. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 011/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Vegetation and Biointrusion Evaluation and Revegetation Plan Page 74 of 117 Hakonson, T.E. 1986. Evaluation of Geologic Materials to Limit Biological Intrusion into Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Sites. LA-10286-MS. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Lindzey, F. G. 1976. “Characteristics of the Natal Den of the Badger,” Northwest Science, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 178–180. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2012. Plants Database. http://plants.usda.gov/java/ Reichman, O.J., and Smith, S. C. 1990. “Burrows and Burrowing Behavior by Mammals,” pp. 197-244 in H.H. Genoways, ed., Current Mammology. Plenum Press, New York and London. 1990. Reynolds, T. D. and J. W. Laundre, 1988. “Vertical Distribution of Soil Removed by Four Species of Burrowing Rodents in Disturbed and Undisturbed Soils,” Health Physics, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 445–450. Reynolds, T. D. and W. L. Wakkinen, 1987. “Burrow Characteristics of Four Species of Rodents in Undisturbed Soils in Southeastern Idaho,” American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 118, pp. 245–260. Smith, E.D., Luxmoore, R.J., and Suter, G.W. 1997. “Natural Physical and Chemical Processes Compromise the Long-Term Performance of Compacted Soil Caps,” in Barrier Technologies for Environmental Management – Summary of a Workshop. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC., pp. D-61 to D-70. Verdolin, Jennifer, Kara Lewis, and Constantine N. Slobodchikoff. 2008. Morphology of Burrow Systems: A Comparison of Gunnison’s (Cynomy gunnisoni), White-tailed (C. leucurus), black-tailed (C. ludovicianus), and Utah (C. parvidens) Prairie Dogs. The Southwestern Naturalist 53(2): 201-207. 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. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 75 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(4); INT 12/1: REPORT RADON BARRIER EFFECTIVENESS REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Within ninety days of the completion of all testing and analysis relevant to the required verification in paragraphs (2) and (3) of 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6, the uranium mill licensee shall report to the Executive Secretary the results detailing the actions taken to verify that levels of release of radon-222 do not exceed 20 pCi/m2s when averaged over the entire pile or impoundment. The licensee shall maintain records until termination of the license documenting the source of input parameters including the results of all measurements on which they are based, the calculations and/or analytical methods used to derive values for input parameters, and the procedure used to determine compliance. These records shall be kept in a form suitable for transfer to the custodial agency at the time of transfer of the site to DOE or a State for long-term care if requested. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0, Section 3 (Tailings Reclamation Plan) and Appendix D (Updated Tailings Cover Design Report dated Sept 2011): Please revise radon flux calculations using actual site-specific material properties data. a. Clearly demonstrate that values of material parameters: 1) Are reasonably conservative 2) Are based on site material samples, measured values, assumptions, or other origins 3) Are based upon appropriate analytical methods and sufficient number of representative samples for cover soils and tailings 4) Consider the variability and uncertainties in actual site-specific data. 5) Are consistent with anticipated construction specifications 6) Are based upon representative long-term site conditions. Response a (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. A site investigation to further evaluate cover borrow materials was conducted on April 19, 2012. The results of laboratory testing on samples collected from the April 2012 investigation was used to develop updated cover material parameters for radon emanation modeling. In addition, other model parameters were further evaluated as necessary to address comments in this interrogatory. The results of the updated analyses are provided in Attachment H as part of the revised Appendix C, Radon Emanation Modeling, which will be included in the next version of the Updated Tailings Cover Design Report (Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan). August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 76 of 117 b. Justify values of material parameters used in the radon flux calculations Response b (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response a. c. Demonstrate that test methods and their precision, accuracy, and applicability are supported by suitable standards and procedures. Response c (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response a. d. Justify that values chosen for radon emanation and diffusion coefficients are consistent with long- term moisture contents projected to exist within tailings and cover materials in the impoundments. Response d (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The radon emanation coefficient parameter was revised for the updated radon analyses presented in Attachment H to be 0.20 based on recommendations in NUREG-1620 (NRC, 2003) that states a “value of 0.20 may be estimated for tailings based on the literature, if supported by limited site-specific measurements.” A radon coefficient used in the model for the cover layers was revised to be 0.35 for the updated radon analyses presented in Attachment H. A value of 0.35 is the conservative default value used in the RADON model. The radon diffusion coefficients can be calculated within the RADON model or input directly using measured values (NRC, 2003). Although laboratory test data was available, the tests were performed at porosities and water contents different than those estimated to represent long-term conditions in the model. Therefore the values were calculated within the RADON model. The revised radon modeling also used radon diffusion coefficients that are calculated within the model. Reference for Response d (August 15, 2012): 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 978. NUREG-1620, Revision 1, June. e. Demonstrate that the quality assurance program used in obtaining parameter data is adequate Response e (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response a and Response d. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 77 of 117 f. Revise the design density and porosity values of cover soils to comply with the usual compaction of 95% of Standard Proctor (D 698). Alternatively, clearly justify the basis for the lower compactions utilized in the radon flux calculations and their expected long-term stability. Response f (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The cover design consists of an evapotranspiration cover. The water storage layer will be compacted to 85 percent of standard Proctor density and the lower random fill layer is estimated to be compacted to 80 percent of standard Proctor density. Use of design density and porosity values corresponding to 95 percent of standard Proctor density would be inconsistent with the cover design. g. Please revise the tailings density, porosity, and moisture values to reflect expected long-term conditions in each of the disposal units. Alternatively, demonstrate the basis for the long-term stability of the values used in the radon flux calculations. Response g (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The long-term tailings density was revised to be 90 pcf, based on laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western Colorado Testing, 1999) and assuming the long-term density of the tailings is at 85 percent of the average laboratory measured maximum dry density. The porosity of the tailings was calculated using the dry density and the average measured specific gravity of 2.75 based on laboratory tests (Chen and Associates, 1987 and Western Colorado Testing, 1999). The long-term moisture content value for the tailings was assumed to be 6 percent in the analyses presented in Denison (2011). This is the same value that was used for the revised radon analyses. 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. References for Response g (August 15, 2012): Chen and Associates, Inc., 1987. Physical Soil Data, White Mesa Project, Blanding Utah, Report prepared for Energy Fuels Nuclear, Inc. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, Regulatory Guide 3.64. June. Western Colorado Testing, Inc., 1999. Report of Soil Sample Testing of Tailings Collected from Cell 2 and Cell 3, Prepared for International Uranium (USA) Corporation. May 4. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 78 of 117 h. Please utilize one of the two accepted methods for long-term moisture estimates (D 2325 or Rawls correlation) with representative samples. Alternatively, justify the use of an acceptable alternative method. Response h (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Laboratory results for the 15 bar water contents for select samples from the April 19, 2012 field investigation were used to estimate long-term water contents for the random fill and erosion protection layers. This is discussed further in Attachment H. i. Please resolve or justify the discrepancy between the 91.4 pcf “best correlation” between the Rawls and in-situ moisture data (Appendix D page C-4) and the density range of 94 to 111 pcf used in the radon flux calculations. Revise and report results of radon flux calculations, as necessary to reflect the resulting changes. Response i (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. See Response h. The radon analyses were updated using the revised estimates for long-term water contents. j. Please utilize a source term based on representative sampling and analysis of the sand, slime, and mixed tailings to 12-ft depths in sufficient and representative locations of each tailings area (e.g., Cells 2, 3, 4A, and 4B.). Alternatively, justify and use the average ore grade method identified in Reg Guide 3.64 for the radon flux calculations. Response j (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The revised estimation of the radium-226 concentration activities used for the tailings is provided in Attachment H. k. Please justify the assumed value of zero for Ra-226 concentrations in cover soils by sampling and measurement of background Ra-226 soil concentrations and comparison of their values with corresponding representative measurements in the proposed cover soils. Alternatively, use values of Ra-226 concentrations in radon flux calculations that are supported by cell-specific measurements. Response k (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Denison has established background values for Ra-226 in surface soil in the White Mesa Mill area. These background values are very low, due to the absence of uranium mineralization in the mill area. The cover soils that have been stockpiled are derived from the same geologic formations as the soils measured for background values. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 79 of 117 Therefore a Ra-226 value for cover soils of zero is appropriate in the radon flux modeling, as outlined in NRC Regulatory Guide 3.64. Reference for Response k (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), 1989. Calculation of Radon Flux Attenuation by Earthen Uranium Mill Tailings Covers, Regulatory Guide 3.64. June. l. Please utilize measured radon emanation coefficients that are representative of the sand, slime, and mixed tailings in the various tailings cell areas; emanation coefficients averaged over measurements for each tailings cell. Alternatively, use default values conservatively estimated from site-specific measurements. Response l (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response d. m. Please utilize measured or calculated radon diffusion coefficients in radon flux calculations that represent the long-term properties of the tailings and cover soil materials. Response m (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response d. n. Please provide written procedures for identifying and placing contaminated soils into the disposal cell(s) and substantiating characterization data and site history. Response n (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Procedures for identifying and placing contaminated soils is provided in Attachment A (Plans and Technical Specifications) of the Reclamation Plan. Additional information on procedures for identifying contaminated soils is provided in the responses to Interrogatory 20/1. o. Provide a revised radon emanation model that incorporates lower values of initial bulk density for the erosion protection layer in the model. The bulk density value selected needs to fall within the range of bulk densities that is recommended (approximately 1.2 to 1.8 g/cm3, or about 75 to 112 pcf) in the section entitled "Soil Requirements for Sustainable Plant Growth" and listed in Table D-5 in Appendix D to the Reclamation Plan as the recommended range required for promoting sustainable plant growth. Response o (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 80 of 117 See Response a. The density of the rock mulch erosion protection layer was revised to be based on the additional laboratory testing of potential cover soils (see Attachment B.2). The previous density of the rock mulch provided in Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan should was incorrectly listed as 124.2 pcf. It should have been listed as 107 pcf based on the historical laboratory testing results. The updated rock mulch density is 106 pcf. This value was used in the radon modeling. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: a. The material parameters used in the radon flux calculations are not shown to be reasonably conservative, and in some cases appear to be non-conservative. For example, the tailings density (1.19 g/cc) appears to correspond to only 71% of standard proctor (based on Appendix D Table 3.4-1). If tailings settle to a greater density upon cover placement, the required cover thickness is likely to increase. b. The material parameters used in the radon flux calculations appear to ignore the variabilities and uncertainties in parameter values. For example, some random-fill moistures are estimated from 15-bar capillary suction values and others from the Rawls correlation, yet no account is given for their uncertainties, equivalence, or applicability in apparently combining them for the constant value of 7.8% moisture assumed for the range of cover layers (~78% to 92% of Proctor density based on Appendix D Table 3.4-1 values). c. Supporting information was not found for the test methods, their precisions, accuracies, and applicability for the radon flux calculations. d. Information was not found to identify the numerical origin of most parameter values used in the radon flux calculations, their basis in site samples, measurements, or assumptions. e. Information was not found to link the radon emanation and diffusion coefficients used in the radon flux calculations to estimated long-term moisture contents at the site. f. Information was not found to demonstrate that sufficient and representative samples were tested to adequately determine material property values. For example, the tailings radium and emanation values appear to be based on a single sample, whose identity, origin, or composition is not identified (sand, slime, mixture? [Attachment A.1.5]). Approximately half of all “random fill” to be used as cover soil appears to have never been sampled or characterized (Appendix D Table 2-1). g. Information was not found about quality assurance applicable to the parameter data used in the radon flux calculations. h. The consistency of material parameter values with anticipated construction specifications and representation of long-term site conditions is not demonstrated. For example, the material compactions of 71% for tailings, 82% for the first random fill layer, and 71% for the upper random fill layer may increase with time due to natural settlement under the cover weight and future land usage. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 81 of 117 i. The target compaction values for two of the cover soil layers are less than the guideline compaction values. j. The tailings density, porosity, and moisture value appear un-sustainable for long-term support of the overlying cover mass. k. The deep in-situ moisture data referred to by NUREG-1620 Sec 5.1.3.1 (6) are intended for comparison with D 2325 or Rawls values, not for averaging with them. The intent is to assure that the measured D 2325 or Rawls values do not exceed the present field values. (i.e., the smaller of the 15-bar or in-situ moistures should be used). l. The chosen long-term moisture values should have a clear and traceable origin in representative samples from the site. m. The present Ra-226 concentration and radon emanation coefficient utilized for tailings in the radon flux calculations is not justified by sampling and analysis data from representative sands, slimes, and mixed tailings over the requisite depth interval and spatial distribution in the different tailings areas nor by the ore-grade method described in Regulatory guide 3.64. n. The Reclamation Plan does not demonstrate that the proposed cover soil materials are not associated with ore formations or other radium-enriched materials or that their radioactivity is essentially the same as surrounding soils as demonstrated by an appropriate procedure. Procedures such as those in the MARSSIM manual are acceptable for this demonstration. o. The single measured radon emanation coefficient of 0.19 lacks representation of sand, slime, mixed, and cell-specific materials, and in particular, any potentially different values derived from processing of alternate feed materials at the mill. p. The radon diffusion coefficients used for tailings and cover soils in the radon flux calculations lack traceability to representative, valid estimates of long-term moisture contents, densities, and porosity values. q. A written procedure was not found in the Reclamation Plan for identifying and placing in the disposal cell all contaminated soils on and adjacent to the processing site , substantiated by radiological characterization data and site history. r. ….In the referenced section of Appendix D to the Reclamation Plan, it is stated that bulk densities of emplaced cover materials will be specified in the cover design and will be controlled during cover construction to be within the sustainability range shown in Table D-5. The radon emanation modeling should therefore assume bulk density values for all cover layers that are representative of the range of recommended bulk densities. NOTE: The same comments as above also apply to Appendix D (Vegetation Evaluation for the Evapotranspiration Cover) and Appendix H (Radon Emanation Modeling for the Evapotranspiration Cover) of the Infiltration and Contaminant Transport Modeling (ICTM) Report. REFERENCES: NRC 2000. NUREG-1575 Rev.1, Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM), August 2000. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 012/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(4): Report Radon Barrier Effectiveness Page 82 of 117 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. Washington DC, June 2003. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 013/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): Concentrations of Radionuclides Other Than Radium in Soil Page 83 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 6(6); INT 13/1: CONCENTRATIONS OF RADIONUCLIDES OTHER THAN RADIUM IN SOIL REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and control of radon releases apply to any portion of a licensed and/or disposal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material, does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (ii) 15 pCi/g of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface. Byproduct material containing concentrations of radionuclides other than radium in soil, and surface activity on remaining structures, must not result in a total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) exceeding the dose from cleanup of radium contaminated soil to the above standard (benchmark dose), and must be at levels which are as low as is reasonably achievable. If more than one residual radionuclide is present in the same 100-square-meter area, the sum of the ratios for each radionuclide of concentration present to the concentration limit will not exceed "1" (unity). A calculation of the potential peak annual TEDE within 1000 years to the average member of the critical group that would result from applying the radium standard (not including radon) on the site must be submitted for approval. The use of decommissioning plans with benchmark doses which exceed 100 mrem/yr, before application of ALARA, requires the approval of the Executive Secretary after consideration of the recommendation of the staff of the Executive Secretary. This requirement for dose criteria does not apply to sites that have decommissioning plans for soil and structures approved before June 11, 1999. Relevant NRC Guidance Background Radiological Characteristics RG 3.8, Section 2.10: Regional radiological data should be reported, including both natural background radiation levels and results of measurements of concentrations of radioactive materials occurring in important biota, in soil and rocks, in air, and in regional surface and local ground waters. These data, whether determined during the applicant's preoperational surveillance program or obtained from other sources, should be referenced. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: 1. Please propose appropriate soil background values (for different geological areas as needed) for Ra-226, U-nat, Th-230, and/or Th-232, as appropriate, with supporting data. Response 1 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The White Mesa Mill reports quarterly composite environmental air particulate data for U-nat, Th-230, Ra-226 and Pb-210. The results of the environmental air sampling presented in the Mill’s Semi Annual Effluent Reports show concentrations well below the Mill’s ALARA goal of 25% of the regulatory standard for each radionuclide. Each of these four radionuclides were considered in setting reference soil concentrations for reclamation. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 013/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): Concentrations of Radionuclides Other Than Radium in Soil Page 84 of 117 The reference soil concentrations for Ra-226 are set at 5 pCi/g and 15 pCi/g for the surface 15 cm soil layer and the subsurface 15 cm soil layer, respectively (hereafter referred to as “5/15”). The dose from Pb-210, which due to its short half-life is assumed to be in equilibrium with the parent Ra-226, was assigned to the dose from Ra-226. (See Attachment I for further discussion.) The site does not contain thorium byproduct material, therefore Ra-228 and Th-232 are not applicable. The soil concentration limits for radionuclides other than Ra-226 are derived from doses calculated for Ra-226 at 5/15 using the same exposure scenarios as were used to estimate the dose from Ra-226 at 5/15. This is referred to as the radium benchmark dose (RBD). This approach was used to establish soil concentration limits for U-nat and Th-230. Based on available data, the preliminary estimate of background for Ra-226 is the average concentration at the site background location (BHV-3) which is 0.93 pCi/g Ra- 226 as indicated in Section 6.6 of Attachment A. The 0.93 pCi/g Ra-226 background concentration is close to nearby measurements from a background program with values of 1.1 pCi/g Ra-226 near the airport entrance south of Blanding and 0.83 pCi/g Ra-226 southeast of Crescent Junction (Myrick et. al., 1981). The 32 Utah measurements ranged from 0.53 to 1.9 pCi/g with an average of 1.3 pCi/g and a standard deviation of 0.74 pCi/g. In addition, Energy Fuels may use site-specific pre-mill background soil concentrations if this information is available. Preliminary estimates of background for U-nat and Th-230 are based on the Ra-226 concentration on the assumption of secular equilibrium for natural materials. Therefore, the predicted U-nat background is 1.90 pCi/g (i.e., 2.051 times 0.93 pCi/g) with the Th- 230 background concentration set equal to 0.93 pCi/g. These preliminary estimates of background concentrations are considered suitable for the scoping survey; however, as recommended in the MARSSIM guidance, a site- specific sampling program will be conducted prior to final status survey with the locations selected with similar geology (surface soil) as the White Mesa areas, in order to determine the background concentrations to be used for final decommissioning. 2. Please indicate whether elevated levels of uranium or thorium are expected to remain in the soil after the Ra-226 criteria have been met, and if so, describe your use of the radium benchmark dose approach (attt H of NUREG-1620) for developing decommissioning criteria for these radionuclides. Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Generally, elevation of U-nat and Th-230 concentrations relative to Ra-226 is unexpected since the contaminated materials will either be ore (which are at or near secular equilibrium) or tailings where U-nat is reduced relative to the other uranium decay series radionuclides of interest. Possible exceptions are areas with raffinate crystals which may have higher Th-230 concentrations compared to Ra-226 1 U-nat includes the activities from U-238, U-234 and U-235. The ratio of U-nat concentration to Ra-226 concentration under equilibrium conditions is 2.05 pCi/g U-nat per pCi/g August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 013/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): Concentrations of Radionuclides Other Than Radium in Soil Page 85 of 117 concentrations and areas of spilled yellowcake product near the Mill where U-nat maybe elevated relative to Ra-226. The RBD approach was applied as described in Attachment I. The RESRAD (Version 6.5) code was used to implement the RBD approach. The RESRAD code is an accepted code by the NRC for application of the radium benchmark dose approach as described in Guidance to the NRC Commission Staff on the Radium Benchmark Dose Approach, a document included in NUREG 1569 as Appendix E (NRC 2003). In brief, radionuclides at the reference soil concentration limits result in the same benchmark dose as the allowable Ra-226 concentration. The concentration limits for the radionuclides of interest were calculated and are provided in Table 1 for the surface and subsurface layers. The scenario is for a rancher with the doses determined using the RESRAD Version 6.5 model. The default RESRAD dietary and inhalation data which apply for the adult are carefully selected from literature and are already considered to represent conservative parameter values. Details on the calculation of concentration limits are provided in Attachment I (the SENES letter report on RBD). Table 1 Incremental Concentration Limits Based on Radium Benchmark Dose Incremental Concentration Limit (pCi/g) Radionuclide Surface Layer Subsurface Layer U-nat 545 2908 Th-230 46 142 Ra-226 5 a 15 a Notes: a Allowable incremental Ra-226 concentration Since there is more than one radionuclide, the criteria for unrestricted use is applied using the unity rule such that the RBD is never exceeded (i.e., the sum of the ratios for each radionuclide incremental concentration present to the concentration limit will not exceed "1"). The concentration in the numerator is determined by subtracting the local background from the total measured value following remediation. It is possible that the background may vary between survey units due to variation in soil types. The sum rules are: For the surface soil: August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 013/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): Concentrations of Radionuclides Other Than Radium in Soil Page 86 of 117 For the subsurface soil: Uranium ores arriving at the mill require very aggressive extraction in the mill in order to recover uranium. This suggests that the uranium in ores processed at the Mill is in an insoluble form. Similarly, residual uranium in solids discharged to the tailings was not extracted through the mill process and can reasonably be assumed to be in an insoluble form. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that any incremental (to background) uranium remaining following remediation is most likely to be in non-soluble forms and hence, chemical toxicity of uranium, which is dependent on exposure to soluble forms, is not considered. 3. Please provide a description of the instruments and procedures that will be used for soil background analyses, radium-gamma correlations, and verification data along with information about the sensitivity of the procedures. Response 3 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Gamma radiation surveys will be conducted either with the existing Ludlum-19 methodology that has been used for operational monitoring as well as previous remediation at White Mesa, or with a GPS-integrated system using 2 inch by 2 inch sodium iodide (NaI) detectors or the equivalent. Descriptions of the existing Ludlum-19 instrument and standard operating procedures are provided in the Mill’s Radiation Protection Reclamation Manual. Procedures for the GPS-integrated survey will be developed if that approach is to be used. Statistical correlations will be developed between the sum rule and the gamma radiation measurements. The sum rule will be determined from measurement data for incremental concentrations at each sample location. The correlation between the measurement sum rule and the gamma radiation measurement at the sample location will produce a prediction equation. MARSSIM requires that the mean concentration in a survey unit be demonstrably lower than criteria following remediation but does not require all sampling units, in this case the 10 meter by 10 meter areas, to be lower than the criteria. The precision goal for the relationship will be that the mean prediction uncertainty for the survey unit will be +/- 0.2 when the predicted sum rule is equal to “1”. The selected alpha error will be 0.05. The initial number of samples will be 15 and the correlations will be assessed following the scoping survey and additional measurement locations will be added, if necessary, to reach suitable precision. Although, final verification requires that the mean is statistically below the criterion, the EFR goal will be to remediate each 10 meter by 10 meter block, or sampling unit, so that the predicted sum rule meets the criterion of “1”. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 013/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): Concentrations of Radionuclides Other Than Radium in Soil Page 87 of 117 4. Please provide final verification (status survey) procedures to demonstrate compliance with the soil and structure cleanup standards. The procedures should specify instruments, calibrations, and testing, and the verification soil sampling density should take into consideration detection limits of samples analyses, the extent of expected contamination, and limits to the gamma survey. The gamma guideline value should be appropriately chosen, and the verification soil radium- gamma correlation should be provided along with the number of verification grids that had additional removal because of excessive Ra-226 values. The plan should provide for adequate data collection beyond the excavation boundary. Surface activity measurements should demonstrate acceptable compliance with surface dose standards for any structures to remain onsite. Response 4 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The final verification survey will be focused on ensuring that the excavation of remediation areas has been established. Gamma Radiation Surveys Locations within the survey areas where excavation has been performed will have a gamma radiation scan. Survey procedures with the Ludlum-19 methodology would follow the existing procedures provided in the Mill’s Radiation Protection Reclamation Manual. With the GPS-integrated methodology, high density gamma radiation scanning surveys can be done using the un-collimated Ludlum 44-10 detectors at a height of 18 inches above the ground. Transects are planned to be 5 m apart to facilitate calculation of 10 meter by 10 meter averages, and this coverage will continue up to 20 meters outside the excavation outline. These locations would correspond to a Class I classification in the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM NUREG- 1575). The remainder of the survey area outside the remediation area corresponds to Class II in MARSSIM and will be surveyed at planned 10 meter transects. The gamma radiation coverage goal will be that 95% of the 10 meter by 10 meter blocks have at least 20 gamma radiation measurements for blocks in and immediately surrounding the excavation areas with measurements in at least three of the four quadrants of the 10 meter by 10 meter block. The requirement for the remainder of the survey area, Class 2, will be that 95% of the blocks have at least 10 gamma radiation measurements. The Class 3 area will include the buffer areas outside the area of contamination, and this area will be surveyed with planned transects of 50 meters. The requirement here is that 20% of the 10 meter by 10 meter blocks have at least 10 measurements. Gamma Radiation Guideline Level The gamma radiation data will be processed to establish the average gamma radiation count rate over the 10 meter by 10 meter blocks. A correlation relationship will be established between the gamma radiation level and the measured sum rule using coincident gamma radiation and soil concentration measurements. The gamma radiation guideline value will be the value such that the predicted mean is 0.8 for the correlation relationship defined for the survey area and the DQO for 10 meter by 10 meter blocks has been attained for gamma radiation. Locations where the gamma August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 013/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): Concentrations of Radionuclides Other Than Radium in Soil Page 88 of 117 radiation guideline is exceeded will have additional excavation and updated gamma radiation surveys before confirmatory sampling. Selection of Verification Samples Following completion of excavation, verification sampling will be carried out to meet two objectives with the first being confirmation of the correlation equation and second, an independent evaluation of the criteria based on soil samples alone. Locations for the initial verification sampling will be established based on a combined selection of sampling points using process history and a random sampling approach for each investigation area. Following a final status gamma radiation survey, a minimum of 15 blocks in the survey unit will be measured to confirm the gamma radiation guideline level. For these 15 samples, the five 10 meter by 10 meter blocks with the highest average gamma radiation will be sampled along with another 10 sample blocks randomly selected from the area. The soil measurements from the 10 randomly selected locations will be assessed to determine if the mean concentration in the survey unit is statistically below the sum rule with an alpha error of 0.05 using the MARSSIM Sign test. (The Sign test is used because the sum rule involves incremental above background concentrations.) However, the statistical test could fail to show that the mean is below the criterion due to the initial number of verification samples. In this case, the mean and variability of the 10 randomly selected measurements will be used to determine MARSSIM’s relative shift with a target grey error equal to 0.8 of the sum rule. The alpha error will be set to 5% and the beta error set to 10% to determine the required total number of samples. A random sample will be determined for collection of the required number of additional samples. Revision of Correlation The verification sample measurements will be compared to the correlation predictions to determine if the correlation consistently over or under-predicts (i.e. is biased) the sum rule. The correlation will be updated with the verification measurements if there is a statistically significant departure, with a p-value of 0.05, over the range of interest (sum rule from 0.5 to 1.0) evaluated using the paired difference between the predicted sum rule using the correlation and the measured sum rule. Reporting For each survey area, the following will be reported: 1. Number of blocks remediated during remediation phase. 2. Number of blocks with subsequent remediation initiated by verification gamma radiation sampling. 3. Gamma radiation coverage compliance (i.e. percentage of blocks meeting number of measurement criteria). 4. Mean gamma radiation level averaged over the 10 meter by 10 meter blocks. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 013/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 6(6): Concentrations of Radionuclides Other Than Radium in Soil Page 89 of 117 5. Mean and range of predicted sum rules based on gamma radiation survey. 6. Mean and range of measured sum rules based on verification sampling. Only clean, uncontaminated buildings, such as office space may remain after reclamation. References for Responses (August 15, 2012) Myrick, T.E., B.A. Berven and F.F. Haywood 1981. State Background Levels: Results of Measurements Taken During 1975-1979, ORNL/TM-7343. United States 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 Final Report. NUREG-1620, Rev.1. June. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC), NUREG 1569, Appendix E, Guidance to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff on the Radium Benchmark Dose Approach. 2003. Yu, C., Zielen, A.J., Cheng, J-J, Le Poire, D.J., Gnanapragasam, E., Kamboj, S., Arnish, J., Wallo III, A., Williams, W.A., and Peterson, H., 2001. User’s Manual for RESRAD Version 6. ANL/EAD-4. July. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: 1. Soil background values with supporting data were not found in the Reclamation Plan for Ra-226, U-nat, Th-230, and/or Th-232. 2. No assessment of potentially elevated levels of uranium or thorium was found in the Reclamation Plan for the post-Ra-226-reclamation site condition. This assessment should be included with the requisite benchmark dose approach if elevated uranium or thorium may remain. 3. The Reclamation Plan does not describe the instruments and procedures that will be used for soil background analyses, radium-gamma correlations, and verification data, nor information about the sensitivity of the procedures. Helpful information may be found in the MARSSIM Manual. 4. The requisite procedures were not found for final verification surveys of the site to demonstrate compliance with the soil and structure cleanup standards. REFERENCES: NRC 1982. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Regulatory Guide 3.8; Preparation of Environmental Reports for Uranium Mills”, Washington DC, October 1982. 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. Washington DC, June 2003. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 90 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40 APPENDIX A; INT 14/1: COVER TEST SECTION AND TEST PAD MONITORING PROGRAMS REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 1:-The general goal or broad objective in siting and design decisions is permanent isolation of tailings and associated contaminants by minimizing disturbance and dispersion by natural forces, and to do so without ongoing maintenance. For practical reasons, specific siting decisions and design standards must involve finite times (e.g., the longevity design standard in Criterion 6). The following site features which will contribute to such a goal or objective must be considered in selecting among alternative tailings disposal sites or judging the adequacy of existing tailings sites: • Remoteness from populated areas; • Hydrologic and other natural conditions as they contribute to continued immobilization and isolation of contaminants from ground-water sources; and • Potential for minimizing erosion, disturbance, and dispersion by natural forces over the long term. • The site selection process must be an optimization to the maximum extent reasonably achievable in terms of these features. In the selection of disposal sites, primary emphasis must be given to isolation of tailings or wastes, a matter having long-term impacts, as opposed to consideration only of short-term convenience or benefits, such as minimization of transportation or land acquisition costs. While isolation of tailings will be a function of both site and engineering design, overriding consideration must be given to siting features given the long-term nature of the tailings hazards. Tailings should be disposed of in a manner that no active maintenance is required to preserve conditions of the site. UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 6(1): In disposing of waste byproduct material, licensees shall place an earthen cover (or approved alternative) over tailings or wastes at the end of milling operations and shall close the waste disposal area in accordance with a design which provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards to (i) be effective for 1,000 years, to the extent reasonably achievable, and, in any case, for at least 200 years, and (ii) limit releases of radon-222 from uranium byproduct materials, and radon-220 from thorium byproduct materials, to the atmosphere so as not to exceed an average release rate of 20 picocuries per square meter per second (pCi/m2s) to the extent practicable throughout the effective design life determined pursuant to (1)(i) of this Criterion. In computing required tailings cover thicknesses, moisture in soils in excess of amounts found normally in similar soils in similar circumstances may not be considered. Direct gamma exposure from the tailings or wastes should be reduced to background levels. The effects of any thin synthetic layer may not be taken into account in determining the calculated radon exhalation level. If non-soil materials are proposed as cover materials, it must be demonstrated that these materials will not crack or degrade by differential settlement, weathering, or other mechanism, over long- term intervals. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 91 of 117 INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Section 8.0 of Attachment A (Technical Specifications and Attachment B (Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan) to the Reclamation Plan and Section 5.0 of Appendix D (Updated Tailings Cover Design Report) of the Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 (DUSA 2011a): 1. Please provide plans and specifications for constructing and performing monitoring and testing of a cover system section representative of the proposed ET cover system for verifying the hydraulic performance characteristics of the cover system. Demonstrate that the proposed test pad/plot will be sufficient in size to eliminate or minimize lateral boundary effects. Describe objectives and criteria for construction and testing of the test pad cover materials /layers. Include information in the CQAQC Plan regarding procedures for sampling and testing of the cover system section specifically pertinent to demonstrating the (short-term and long-term) performance of the ET cell cover design. Address, as part of the testing program, testing of parameters specifically recommended by Benson et al. 2011; Waugh et al. 2008; the National Research Council 2007; Albright et al. 2007; others) including, but not necessarily limited to: a. Monitoring of in-situ soil water tension and volumetric water content as a function of time (e.g., using heat dissipation probes and TDR [time domain reflectometry]); b. Monitoring of in-situ flux rates as a function of time (e.g., through use of one or more pan lysimeters as recommended by Benson et al. 2011 and Dwyer et al. 2007) on both north and south-facing slopes as required); c. Physical sampling and laboratory testing for index properties, including Plasticity Index and saturated hydraulic conductivity, and other pertinent parameters including compaction properties, organic matter and CaCO3 content, and measurement of soil edaphic properties (properties that influence vegetation establishment and growth – e.g., see Waugh et al. 2008); d. Other testing if needed for determining changes in water in storage and soil water characteristic curves (SWCCs, e.g., according to ASTM D6836 [ASTM 2008]) and monitoring for potential changes in SWCCs through time; e. Conducting soil vegetation surveys (as recommended by Benson et al. 2011); and f. Monitoring of relevant climatological parameters (precipitation and evaporation rates, temperature, barometric pressure, snow amounts, wind speed and wind direction, etc...), including continuous monitoring over several years necessary to understand how covers are influenced by fluctuations in climate and other environmental factors (Waugh et al. 2008) such as an extraordinarily wet year or consecutive wet years. Response 1 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Denison proposes to install a performance monitoring section to evaluate the performance of the final tailings cover system. The performance monitoring section will be built into the final tailings cover system and will be monitored concurrently with the operation of the final cover system. The proposed conceptual design and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) of the performance monitoring section is briefly described below. Detailed plans, specifications, and a QA/QC plan for construction and August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 92 of 117 sampling will be prepared and submitted following approval of the proposed performance monitoring by the Division. Conceptual Design of the Performance Monitoring Section Design Basis The conceptual design of the performance monitoring section will be adopted from the installation instructions for the test sections used in the Alternative Cover Assessment Program (ACAP) (Benson et al., 1999) and incorporate the performance monitoring recommendations provided in NUREG/CR-7028 (Benson et al., 2011) and site-specific recommendations provided by Dr. Craig H. Benson (Craig H. Benson, personal communication, May 8, 2012). The performance monitoring area will be constructed as a large ACAP-style drainage lysimeter that provides direct measurement of all components of the water balance (esp. percolation), except evapotranspiration. In-situ soil water content and temperature measurements of the cover soils will be taken within the performance monitoring area and a weather station will be installed adjacent to the performance monitoring area. Specifications for the performance monitoring area will be patterned after the ACAP test section installation instructions (Benson et al., 1999) (see Attachment D of the May 31, 2012 response document) with the following exceptions: • Soil water tension sensors will not be installed. Experience in ACAP showed that data collected from the soil water tension sensors had little value for evaluating cover performance. Additionally, soil water tension sensors can be challenging to calibrate and operate. Soil water content sensors (water content reflectometers) and temperature sensors will be installed. Although soil water content and temperature are not direct measures of cover performance, data from these sensors are useful information for interpreting cover performance data, especially when performance metrics are not satisfied. • The water content reflectometers will be installed in two nests rather than the three nests used in ACAP. Experience at the ACAP test sites has shown little spatial variability within the test sections, such that data from the three sets of nested sensors was very similar (Craig H. Benson, personal communication, 8 May 2011). Two sensor nests will be used to provide a redundant set of water content measurements, as recommended in NUREG/CR-7028 (Benson et al., 2011). • A sediment basin will not be installed for the surface run-off drainage. Experience with the ACAP test sections showed that sediment control is not needed (Craig H. Benson, personal communication, May 8, 2012). Location The performance monitoring section is proposed to be located in the northeast corner of Cell 2 within the area that has a 0.5% slope. This location will have the flattest slope on the cover system with the lowest potential run-off and represent the lower bound for performance of the final cover system (Benson et al., 2011). August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 93 of 117 Size The size of the performance monitoring section will be 10 meters (perpendicular to the slope gradient) by 20 meters (in the direction of the slope gradient), which is the same size as an ACAP-style lysimeter. This section size is greater than 3 times the typical spatial correlation length of the cover soils, thus providing a spatially averaged percolation rate with little variability (Benson, 1991; Benson et al., 2011). A performance monitoring area of this size also minimizes lateral boundary effects. This is the same area that was used for the ACAP test cells and was found to be acceptable for all the ACAP sites evaluated (Craig H. Benson, personal communication, May 8, 2012). Components of Lysimeter The lysimeter will include the following components: • Geomembrane-lined (LLDPE) base and vertical side slopes. • Geocomposite drainage layer draining percolation to a collection sump above the LLDPE base. • Geosynthetic root barrier layer above the radon attenuation and grading layer (lower layer of cover system). • Earthen surface run-off collection berm that collects surface run-off, diverts surface run-on, and channels run-off to a single collection point. • Separate PVC drainage pipes for percolation and surface run-off that drain to separate measurement stations. Instrumentation Instrumentation will include water content reflectometers and temperature sensors to measure water content and temperature of the cover soils in the lysimeter, tipping buckets to measure percolation and surface runoff, and a weather station located immediately outside of the lysimeter area. Two nests of water content reflectometers and temperature sensors will be installed: one nest at the centerline of the upslope third of the lysimeter and one nest at the centerline of the downslope third of the lysimeter. Each nest will consist of six water content reflectometers and temperature sensors: two placed in the radon attenuation and grading layer, two placed in the radon attenuation layer, and two placed in the water storage layer. Continuous monitoring of climatic data to understand how the cover is influenced by fluctuations in climate and other environmental factors goes beyond performance monitoring of the cover system. Using a dedicated weather station will reduce the effort and inconsistencies that can be associated with integrating data from a site-wide weather station and data collected from the lysimeter. The lysimeter weather station will include a precipitation gauge, shielded temperature and humidity probe, pyranometer (solar radiation sensor), and wind sentry (wind speed and direction). All measurement devices will be wired to a single datalogger that can be accessed remotely (e.g., via cellular). This will facilitate accurate and convenient integration of the monitoring data and provide ready access for periodic quality control checks. Conceptual Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan for Performance Monitoring Section August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 94 of 117 The Construction Quality Assurance and Quality Control (CQA/CQC) plan for reclamation will be revised to include provisions to test the construction of the performance monitoring section and procedures for sampling and testing the cover soils within the performance monitoring section. The QA/QC plan for the performance monitoring section will include the following components: • Preparing and compacting the foundation • Testing the geomembrane integrity, including testing of welds and boots • Leak testing the lysimeter, drainage pipes, and collection basins • Programming, calibrating and testing instrumentation • Testing of cover soil properties • Vegetation survey The QA/QC plan for testing of cover soil properties for the performance monitoring section will include measurement of index properties, organic matter, saturated hydraulic conductivity, and soil water content characteristic curves (SWCCs). These tests will be conducted during construction to verify that the cover soils in the performance monitoring section are representative of the as-built cover soils in other areas of the final cover system. Denison is not proposing to test the soils throughout the operational period to determine changes in properties with time. Monitoring the change in soil properties with time, such as that done for the NUREG/CR-7028 (Benson et al., 2011) is useful as a research endeavor to understand the evolution of the cover system, but is un-necessary as a direct performance-based metric for the cover system. Performance of the cover system will be evaluated by percolation from the cover to the percolation rate predicted for the ground water contaminant transport assessment. The QA/QC plan for vegetation surveys will be based on the recommendations in NUREG/CR-7028 (Benson et al., 2011). This includes annual inspections of the distribution of plant species, percent plant coverage, and leaf area index for the first five years of operation. The vegetation surveys will be conducted for the final cover over the tailings cells as well as for the performance monitoring section. Data from the performance monitoring section and the final cover will be compared to ensure that the vegetation on the monitoring section is representative of the vegetation on the final cover. References for Response 1 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Benson, C.H., 1991. Predicting Excursions beyond Regulatory Thresholds of Hydraulic Conductivity Using Quality control Measurements, Proc. of the First Canadian Conference on Environmental Geotechnics, Montreal, May 14-17, 447-454. Benson, C.H., W.H. Albright, D.O. Fratta, J.M. Tinjum, E. Kucukkirca, S.H. Lee, J. Scalia, P.D. Schlicht, and X. Wang, 2011. Engineered Covers for Waste Containment: Changes in Engineering Properties and Implications for Long-Term Performance Assessment, Volume 1 and 2, NUREG/CR-7028, Report Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December. 2. Provide additional information and plans and specifications for constructing and testing a cover system “test pad/test plot” prior to construction of the proposed ET cover system over the August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 95 of 117 consolidated, dewatered tailings. Demonstrate that the proposed test pad/plot will be sufficient in size to eliminate or minimize lateral boundary effects. Describe objectives and criteria for construction and testing of the test pad cover materials /layers including but not limited to: a. Acquisition of data of the types described in Item 1. above; b. Determination of an acceptable zone (AZ) for soil textures in soils used for constructing the final cover system (e.g., Williams et al. 2010); c. Determination of most effective means of “bonding” individual soil cover soil layers (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2007); and d. Determination of appropriate lift thickness/placement and compaction equipment combinations (e.g., Dwyer et al. 2007). Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Denison is not proposing to construct a cover system test pad prior to construction of the final cover system. Rather, Denison is planning to construct a performance monitoring section to evaluate the performance of the final tailings cover system. Denison’s recommendations for cover performance monitoring are outlined in Response 1. In addition, Denison has completed extensive modeling of the cover system to demonstrate that the cover will perform effectively for a variety of climatic and vegetative scenarios. Denison has refined the modeling to incorporate the results of supplementary laboratory testing conducted on the borrow soils for the cover. The refined modeling and additional sensitivity analyses were conducted to address the Revised ICTM Interrogatories. The results of the updated modeling are provided as part of the second response document to the Revised ICTM Interrogatories. Denison also believes that a cover system test pad is unnecessary given the wealth of data collected at by ACAP at the Monticello Uranium Mill Tailings Disposal Facility near Monticello, Utah. The Monticello site is approximately 35 kilometers northeast from the White Mesa site. The earthen component of the Monticello cover, which is monitored by ACAP, is analogous to the cover to be employed at White Mesa. Thus, the data from Monticello provide an ideal analog for the performance expected at White Mesa. The Monticello cover has been monitored continuously for nearly 12 years. During the monitoring period from 12 August 2000 through 27 March 2012, the average annual percolation rate at Monticello was 0.7 mm/yr and the average annual precipitation was 368 mm. The peak annual percolation rate was 3.8 mm/yr, and was received during the second wettest year of the monitoring period (2005, 520 mm precipitation). During the wettest year of the monitoring period (2010, 559 mm precipitation), the annual percolation rate was 1.9 mm. This was the wettest year on record at Monticello (data from Craig H. Benson, personal communication, 24 May 2012). These percolation rates are within the range of rates and lower than maximum predicted rate for the infiltration modeling for White Mesa. The profile of the Monticello cover is shown in Figure 1. The profile of the White Mesa cover was provided on Drawing TRC-8 of the Reclamation Plan and in Figure 1-1 of Appendix D of the Reclamation Plan. A biointrusion layer embedded in the cover (cobbles embedded in the fine-textured cover soil) and a sand drainage layer (at the base of the cover) are the only additional features in the earthen component of the August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 96 of 117 Monticello cover that are significantly different from the cover proposed for White Mesa. The biointrusion layer reduces water storage capacity, which potentially may increase percolation at Monticello relative to White Mesa. The sand drainage layer beneath the cover at Monticello also acts as a capillary break, which enhances water storage and may decrease percolation at Monticello relative to White Mesa. Thus, effects of the biointrusion layer and sand drainage layer at Monticello are offsetting. Accordingly, these differences between the covers at White Mesa and Monticello should result in only marginal differences in hydrologic performance. Figure 1. Monticello Evapotranspiration Cover Profile (from Waugh et. al, 2009) Bonding Between Soil Lifts Concern about lift bonding is based on prior studies on factors controlling the effectiveness of compacted clay liners. Lifts that are carefully bonded are assumed to transmit less water laterally between the lifts, and have lower likelihood of connectivity between vertically oriented defects in adjacent lifts (Benson et al. 1994). This can be particularly important for saturated conditions (i.e., for a liner), but is not relevant for unsaturated conditions found in a water balance cover. Under unsaturated conditions, larger pores and spaces such as interlift zones are not hydraulically active (Craig H. Benson, personal communication, 24 May 2012). August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 97 of 117 Field experience over the past two decades has also shown that complete bonding of lifts is nearly impossible (Craig H. Benson, personal communication, 24 May 2012). In nearly all cases, lift interfaces can be identified and lifts can be separated even if a high level of effort is applied to promote lift bonding. The pragmatic approach is to recognize that interlift zones exist and to use construction methods that render interlift zones as tortuous as practical. This is most effectively done by leaving a rough upper surface on the underlying lift prior to placement of the following lift (e.g., the impressions associated with a compactor foot or the tracks on a dozer are effective in creating this rough surface). Processes that promote a smooth surface, such as smooth drum compaction and smooth blading of the surface, result in a much more transmissive interlift zone and should be avoided (Craig H. Benson, personal communication, 24 May 2012). At White Mesa, a rough surface will be maintained on the surface of all but the uppermost lift to ensure that interlift zone is as non-transmissive as practical. Lift Thickness and Compactors Soil layers used for water storage in a water balance cover must have a pore space that retains water and provide a favorable environment for roots. These constraints require that the soil not be cover compacted, which is most effectively accomplished by using relatively thick lifts of soil and machinery with lower ground pressure (e.g., dozer tracks instead of a soil compactor). Lifts that are 18 inches thick and placed with a dozer can normally be deployed with a relative compaction between 80-90% of standard Proctor (i.e., a suitable density for root growth) (Albright et al. 2010). Prior to construction at White Mesa, test strips will be constructed where the lift thickness is varied and machinery is varied. Lift thicknesses and placement machinery that promote uniform compaction of the soil without over compaction will be identified. References for Response 2 (August 15, 2012): Albright, W., Benson, C., and Waugh, W., 2010. Water Balance Covers for Waste Containment: Principles and Practice, ASCE Press, Reston, VA, 158 p. Benson, C. and Daniel, D., 1994. Minimum Thickness of Compacted Soil Liners: II- Analysis and Case Histories, J. Geotech. Eng., 120(1), 153-172. Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Radiation Control (DRC), 2012. Denison Mines (USA) Corp’s White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Rev. 5.0; Interrogatories – Round 1. March. Waugh, W.J., C.H. Benson, W.H. Albright, 2009. Sustainable Covers for Uranium Mill Tailings, USA: Alternative Design, Performance, and Renovation, Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, ICEM2009-16369, October 11-15. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The need for constructing and monitoring a cover test section representative of the proposed ET cover system, with supporting basis and rationale for building and monitoring such a test cover section, was August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 98 of 117 previously addressed in a Round 1A Interrogatory submitted to DUSA on Revision 4.0 of the Reclamation Plan in October 2010. DUSA’s response (DUSA 2011b) to that interrogatory indicated the following: “Denison is not proposing a test pad for demonstrating short- and long-term performance of the alternative tailings cell cover system. Rather, Denison has completed extensive modeling of the cover system for demonstrating that the cover will perform effectively for a variety of climatic and vegetative scenarios. It may be possible to extend a portion of the cover system beyond the edge of the first tailings cell such that the hydraulic conditions within the cover system could be evaluated through time (in a test pad like setting) without causing deleterious effects to the cover above the tailings. This "test pad" would be further evaluated after approval of the cover design”; and “Denison is proposing monitoring in situ performance of the alternative tailings cell cover system to include monitoring hydraulic conditions at nested intervals within the soil profile at three locations within the first tailings cell that is reclaimed. The depth intervals that are evaluated would depend on the final design specifications of the approved alternative cover system, but would likely represent data collected from three depths. The first depth interval would be located immediately below the soil-gravel admixture (0.6 feet), the second depth interval would be located near the midpoint of the maximum rooting depth (1.5 feet), and the third depth interval would be located at or slightly below the maximum rooting depth (3.8 feet) but above the proposed upper compacted layer; “The pertinent hydraulic properties to be monitored would include soil water tension and volumetric water content. Soil water tension would be measured with a heat dissipation probe, while volumetric water content would be measured with a time domain reflectometry (TDR) probe. The use of these monitoring methods is consistent with what was used to monitor conditions as part of the Alternative Cover Assessment Program (ACAP). Changes in water content through time can be used to assess changes in soil water storage through time. Measurements of volumetric water content and soil water tension can be related to the soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity curves to estimate a water flux rate and cover performance through time”…; and “Climatological parameters are currently being measured at the site and include precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction. In addition, air temperature and barometric pressures are measured monthly for environmental air station calibrations. Based on this information in addition to supplemental climate data from the nearest weather station (Blanding, Utah station 420738), the daily amount of evapotranspiration can be computed.” Although the response provided by DUSA to the Round 1A Interrogatory includes a proposal to monitor the performance of the cover, additional details, including plans and construction specifications for constructing a representative cover section, and detailed sampling and testing procedures and associated quality assurance and quality control methods need to be provided that demonstrate that the test section and monitoring/testing program: (1) is consistent with applicable current published guidance for such programs: (2) is fully integrated with, and compatible with, the essential elements of the currently proposed ET Cover design; (2) that data acquired from the monitoring/testing program will allow the short-term and longer-term performance predictions made with regard to the proposed cover system to be validated. Applicable recent published guidance documents include NUREG/CR-7028 (Benson et al. 2011), a peer- reviewed report published for the NRC in December 2011, which reports the findings from investigations of several earthen and soil/geosynthetic cover systems to assess changes in properties of cover materials in those cover systems 5 to 10 years following their construction. A key conclusion of the report is that findings from these investigations demonstrate that changes in the engineering properties of cover soils generally occur while in service (and that long-term engineering properties should be used as input to models employed for long-term performance assessments). The report indicates that changes in hydraulic properties occurred in all cover soils evaluated due to the formation of soil structure, regardless of August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 99 of 117 climate, cover design, or service life. The report includes the following conclusions and recommendations: • Because cover systems change over time, they should be monitored to ensure that they are functioning as intended. Monitoring using pan lysimeters combined with secondary measurements collected for interpretive purposes (water content, temperature, vegetation surveys, etc.) is recommended; and • At a minimum, at least one pan lysimeter having a minimum dimension of 10 m should be installed for performance monitoring. If only one lysimeter is installed, the location should be selected to represent the most unfavorable condition at the site. Additional relevant guidance documents include Waugh et al. 2008, Albright et al. 2007; Benson et al. 2007; and the National Research Council 2007, and Dwyer et al. 2007, which indicate that characteristics of the proposed alternative cover will inevitably change in the long term in response to climate, pedogenesis, and ecological succession. Monitoring the proposed alternative cover system or monitoring of a test cover section simulating the cover system components and geometry) to assess the long-term performance of the alternative cover is needed to verify the characteristics and infiltration performance of the constructed cover system as well as to gain confidence in understanding long-term changes that may occur in the physical/hydraulic properties of the alternative cover system over time following its construction. Additionally, a cover system test pad/test plot capable of assisting in confirming the performance of the proposed alternative cover system should be constructed and monitored. The proposed alternative cover design incorporates more loosely compacted soil layers. Dwyer et al. 2007, for example, describes results of recent research and field investigations of arid climate closure covers conducted by Los Alamos National Laboratory. As discussed in that report, lift thickness should be maximized for placement and compaction of a soil cover. During cover placement, it is crucial that each lift be bonded to the previous lift to cut down on the creation of interlift passageways (cracks) for the water to travel along as it passes from an overlying lift to a lower one. Test pads prior to cover material placement may prove beneficial in determining appropriate lift thickness/placement and compaction equipment combinations. A full-scale cover system test pad/test plot can provide information that can lead to additional performance criteria for the cover design process. Quantification of soil properties, soil placement conditions and agronomic characteristics used in the test pad could, for example, help refine selection criteria for selection of onsite soils for use in final cover construction, including, further definition of soils that would result in a texture within a defined Acceptable Zone (AZ). The determination of the AZ for soil texture may be based on the field test pad demonstration, hydraulic property testing, and percolation modeling of the successful test plot soils. REFERENCES: Albright, W.H., Waugh, W.J., and Benson, C.H. 2007. “Alternative Covers: Enhanced Soil Water Storage and Evapotranspiration in the Source Zone.” Enhancements to Natural Attenuation: Selected Case Studies, Early, T.O. (ed), pp 9-17. Prepared for U.S. Dept. of Energy by Washington Savannah River Company, WSRC-STI-2007-00250. URL: http://www.dri.edu/images/stories/research/programs/acap/acap-publications/10.pdf. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 014/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A: Cover Test Section and Test Pad Monitoring Programs Page 100 of 117 Benson, C.H., Sawangsuriya, A., Trzebiatowski, B., and Albright, W.H. 2007. “Postconstruction Changes in the Hydraulic Properties of Water Balance Cover Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 133:4, pp. 349-359. Benson, C.H. W.H. Albright, W.H., Fratta, D.O.,Tinjum, J.M., Kucukkirca, E., Lee, S.H., J. Scalia, J., Schlicht, P.D., and Wang, X. 2011. Engineered Covers for Waste Containment: Changes in Engineering Properties and Implications for Long-Term Performance Assessment(in 4 volumes). NUREG/CR-7028, Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., December 2011. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 2011a. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, September 2011. Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 2011b. Responses to Supplemental Interrogatories – Round 1A for Reclamation Plan, Revision 4.0, November 2009. December 28, 2011. Dwyer, S.F., Rager, R.E., and Hopkins, J. 2007. Cover System Design Guidance and Requirements Document. LA-UR-06-4715. EP2006-0667. Los Alamos National Laboratory. April 2007. URL: http://www.lanl.gov/environment/cleanup/req_docs.shtml National Research Council 2007. Assessment of the Performance of Engineered Waste Containment Barriers. Board of Earth Sciences and Resources. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2007, 134 pp. 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. Williams, L.O., Zornberg, J.G., Dwyer, S.F., Hoyt, D.L., and Hargreaves, G.A. 2010. “Design Rationale for Construction and Monitoring of Unsaturated Soil Covers at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. 6th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, New Delhi, India. URL: http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/zornberg/pdfs/CP/Williams_Zornberg_Dwyer_Hoyt_Hargreaves_2010.pdf August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 015/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 9: Financial Surety Arrangements Page 101 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITEMESA RECPLAN REV 5.0 R313-24-4; 10CFR40, APPENDIX A, CRITERION 9; INT 15/1: FINANCIAL SURETY ARRANGEMENTS REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24-4 invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 9: Financial surety arrangements must be established by each mill operator prior to the commencement of operations to assure that sufficient funds will be available to carry out the decontamination and decommissioning of the mill and site and for the reclamation of any tailings or waste disposal areas. The amount of funds to be ensured by such surety arrangements must be based on Executive Secretary-approved cost estimates in a Executive Secretary-approved plan for (1) decontamination and decommissioning of mill buildings and the milling site to levels which allow unrestricted use of these areas upon decommissioning, and (2) the reclamation of tailings and/or waste areas in accordance with technical criteria delineated in Section I of this Appendix. The licensee shall submit this plan in conjunction with an environmental report that addresses the expected environmental impacts of the milling operation, decommissioning and tailings reclamation, and evaluates alternatives for mitigating these impacts. The surety must also cover the payment of the charge for long-term surveillance and control required by Criterion 10. In establishing specific surety arrangements, the licensee's cost estimates must take into account total costs that would be incurred if an independent contractor were hired to perform the decommissioning and reclamation work. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication and expense, the Executive Secretary may accept financial sureties that have been consolidated with financial or surety arrangements established to meet requirements of other Federal or state agencies and/or local governing bodies for such decommissioning, decontamination, reclamation, and long-term site surveillance and control, provided such arrangements are considered adequate to satisfy these requirements and that the portion of the surety which covers the decommissioning and reclamation of the mill, mill tailings site and associated areas, and the long-term funding charge is clearly identified and committed for use in accomplishing these activities. The licensee's surety mechanism will be reviewed annually by the Executive Secretary to assure, that sufficient funds would be available for completion of the Reclamation Plan if the work had to be performed by an independent contractor. The amount of surety liability should be adjusted to recognize any increases or decreases resulting from inflation, changes in engineering plans, activities performed, and any other conditions affecting costs. Regardless of whether reclamation is phased through the life of the operation or takes place at the end of operations, an appropriate portion of surety liability must be retained until final compliance with the Reclamation Plan is determined. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: 1. Justify the decrease in costs estimated for mill decommissioning and reclamation of Cells 1, 2, and 3 from those estimated in the White Mesa Reclamation Plan, Rev. 4.0 dated November 2009. Explain why several estimated levels of effort (e.g., total effort for Mill Yard Decontamination, Ore Storage Pad Decontamination, Equipment Storage Area Cleanup and Cell 1 Construct Channel) are smaller in 2011 than those estimated in 2009. Explain and rectify apparent discrepancies between labor rates used in cost estimates and those presented in the exhibit in Attachment C titled “Labor Costs”. Response 1 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Comparison of the cost estimates for 2009 verses 2011 are meaningless at this time as the estimates are for different cover systems, and the costs have been updated annually to take into account variations in equipment rental rates, labor rates and changes in material costs. In addition, the 2011 estimate utilized labor rates specific to the type and size of equipment being operated, instead of an average labor rate for all machines. Haul routes were also revised and updated to reflect current site conditions. Mill August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 015/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 9: Financial Surety Arrangements Page 102 of 117 decommissioning costs are also revised from year to year to take in to account the expected volume of ore material and alternate feed material that may have to be hauled to the tailings cells. These quantities can vary significantly from year to year. Once the final cover design is conceptually approved, the cost estimate will be updated utilizing revised material volumes, specific stockpile locations for each material type, and updated equipment rental rates, labor rates and changes in material costs. 2. Identify analytes for which soil samples identified in the cost estimate for “Cleanup of Windblown Contamination” will be analyzed. Justify (or revise with justification) the assumed sample analysis cost of $50. Response 2 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Verification soil samples will be analyzed for uranium, radium and thorium. Updated analysis costs will be justified and utilized in the final cost estimate following conceptual approval of the revised cover design and revised reclamation plan. 3. Revise and report estimated reclamation costs, incorporating responses to instructions listed above. Response 3 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): See Response 1. 4. Estimate and report the costs for a third party to conduct decommissioning and impoundment reclamation in the coming year rather than at the end of planned life. Response 4 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Estimated reclamation and decommissioning costs are current costs assuming the reclamation activity were to start immediately. The costs are for the facility as it exists at the time of the estimate and not at the end of the planned life. The estimated costs assume that the reclamation is conducted by an unaffiliated third party, overseen by the State of Utah, Division of Radiation Control. 5. Please provide and justify estimates of costs associated with complying with the current Air Quality Approval Order (DAQE-AN1205005-06, issue date July 20, 2006) and License Condition 11.4 and 11.5 during final reclamation, as stated in Section 1.5 of Reclamation Plan 5.0, Attachment A, Technical Plans and Specifications. Response 5 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Compliance with the Air Quality Approval Order and current License conditions are incidental to the daily operation of the White Mesa Mill and will continue to be managed by the onsite staff during reclamation activities. The management expense for this activity is covered in the Miscellaneous section of the Reclamation Cost estimate. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 015/1: R313-24-4; 10CFR40.Appendix A, Criterion 9: Financial Surety Arrangements Page 103 of 117 6. Please state and justify the times projected to be necessary to dewater Cell 2 and Cell 3. Provide and justify estimates of all costs associated with the apparently lengthy dewatering time for Cell 2 and Cell 3. Also see Interrogatory 7/01, item 8. Response 6 (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Cell 2 and Cell 3 dewatering costs are incidental to the daily operation of the White Mesa Mill and will continue to be managed by the onsite staff during reclamation activities. The management expense for this activity is covered in the Miscellaneous section of the Reclamation Cost estimate. In addition, the current estimate includes the construction and operation of a holding pond for solution from the dewatering of the tailings cells. O&M costs for the dewatering of Cell 2 and Cell 3 will be re-evaluated once the final cover design is conceptually approved. Consolidation of the tailings sands in Cell 2 and Cell 3 is being monitored and, based on an analysis of the data, placement of the final cover can take place prior to the termination of slimes drain dewatering. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: Comparing the cost estimate contained in Attachment C to Reclamation Plan Rev. 4.0 2009 with those contained in Attachment C to Reclamation Plan Rev. 5.0 2011 reveals differences that should be addressed. Contrary to expectations, the costs associated with mill decommissioning and reclamation of most of the cells and some durations and levels of effort are smaller in 2011 than they were in 2009. Some labor costs are not obviously supported by the data sources presented in the attachment. Once Items 1 and 2 above have been addressed, the reclamation cost estimate should be revised and resubmitted. Without justification for an assumption to the contrary, the Division interprets the cost estimate as applying to decommissioning and reclamation that occur at the projected end of facility life. If so, the Licensee should also estimate the cost to decommission the mill area and reclaim all ponds under conditions likely to exist within the next year. The financial assurance provided should ensure that funds sufficient to cover costs of decommissioning and reclaiming within the next year are available to the State. Costs associated with complying with the current Air Quality Approval Order and License Condition 11.4 and 11.5 during final reclamation need to be included in the surety. Section 1.5 of Reclamation Plan 5.0, Attachment A, Technical Plans and Specifications, states that reclamation will comply with State of Utah Air Quality Approval Order (DAQE-AN1205005-06, issue date July 20, 2006). The times required to dewater Cell 2 and 3 appear to will be lengthy, based on current dewatering rates. Costs associated with this lengthy dewatering time for Cell 2 and 3 need to be included in the surety. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corp. 2009. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 4.0, November 2009. Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 016/1: R313-15-501: Radiation Protection Manual Page 104 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-15-501; INT 16/1; RADIATION PROTECTION MANUAL REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-15-501; Surveys and Monitoring General invokes the following requirement from 10CFR40, Appendix A, Criterion 1: “(1) Each licensee or registrant shall make, or cause to be made, surveys that:(a) Are necessary for the licensee or registrant to comply with Rule R313-15; and(b) Are necessary under the circumstances to evaluate:(i) The magnitude and the extent of radiation levels; and(ii) Concentrations or quantities of radioactive material; and(iii) The potential radiological hazards. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Appendix D, Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation: Provide information on how these largely operational radiation protection practices will change to support the changed needs of decommissioning and reclamation. Describe how the Radiation Protection program will be evaluated and revised to address the range of activities required to support decommissioning and reclamation activities. The following are selected examples of topics (not exhaustive) that should be evaluated and possibly revised to support decommissioning and reclamation. • Section 1.3 Beta Gamma Surveys: Conduct beta gamma frisk surveys where appropriate during decommissioning and reclamation. • Section 1.4 Urinalysis Surveys: State the frequency of conducting urinalyses during decommissioning and reclamation. • Sections 2.1.2, 2.3.2, 2.4.2 Frequency/locations: State how the frequency and locations for all monitoring methods will be modified to accommodate decommissioning and reclamation activities. Response (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): The Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation has been updated to include additional text regarding practices for decommissioning and reclamation and is included as Attachment E to the May 31, 2012 response document. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The Radiation Protection program provides information on regarding current operations but does not any information on how these practices will change to support reclamation. While reclamation will occur at a future date and the specific details may not be available at this time, it is important that the Radiation Protection Program identify the approach that will be taken to address these needs. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011 :Attachment D Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation September 2011 August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 17/1: R313-15-1002: Release Surveys Page 105 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-15-1002; INT 17/1; RELEASE SURVEYS REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-15-1002; Method for Obtaining Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedures. A licensee or registrant or applicant for a license or registration may apply to the Executive Secretary for approval of proposed procedures, not otherwise authorized in these rules, to dispose of licensed or registered material generated in the licensee's or registrant's operations. Each application shall include:(1) A description of the waste containing licensed or registered material to be disposed of, including the physical and chemical properties that have an impact on risk evaluation, and the proposed manner and conditions of waste disposal; and(2) An analysis and evaluation of pertinent information on the nature of the environment; and(3) The nature and location of other potentially affected facilities; and(4) Analyses and procedures to ensure that doses are maintained ALARA and within the dose limits in Rule R313-15. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Attachment D, Section 2.6, Release Surveys: Revise to address the decontamination, release, and disposal of equipment and buildings necessary to support decommissioning and reclamation. Develop and present detailed release survey procedures and identify appropriate radiation survey equipment that will be used. Develop and present additional decontamination procedures during decommissioning and reclamation and include section on disposal of equipment that cannot be decontaminated. Response (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Section 2.6 of the Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation (Attachment D of the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0) has been revised to include reference to a Release Form outlining the procedures for release. The Release Form is included in the updated Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation (Attachment E to the May 31, 2012 response document). BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: The decommissioning plan indicates equipment and structural material may be removed, decontaminated and surveyed for unrestricted release. But the radiation protection plan does not include procedures, or identify instruments that would be used on conduct these release surveys. NUREG-1575 Supplement 1 “Multi-agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment Manual (MARSAME)” may be helpful in developing these procedures. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011 :Attachment D Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation September 2011 August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 18/1: R313-15-12: Inspection and Quality Assurance Page 106 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-12; INT 18/1: INSPECTION AND QUALITY ASSURANCE REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-12: an individual who has the knowledge and responsibility to apply appropriate radiation protection rules and has been assigned such responsibility by the licensee or registrant. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Section 1.6, Inspection and Quality Assurance: Revise the provided the “Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation” cited in this section, to define the responsibilities and duties of the Radiation Safety Officer. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Section 1.8b, Inspection and Quality Assurance: Revise the wording to indicate that the DRC must review and approve all design modifications to the Reclamation Plan. Response (May 31, 2012 and August 15, 2012): Section 1 of the Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation (Attachment D of the Reclamation Plan, Revision 5.0) has been revised to include the responsibilities of the Radiation Safety Officer during reclamation (see Attachment E to the May 31, 2012 response document). The wording in section 1.8b of the Technical Specifications will be revised to indicate the DRC must review and approve all design modifications to the Reclamation Plan. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: Although Attachment A points to “Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation” in identifying responsibilities and duties of the Radiation Safety Officer, the provided manual does not identify these responsibilities. The Radiation Safety Officers responsibilities during reclamation need to be identified, as they will be different than what is required during operations. DRC must be designated to approve of any design modifications to the Reclamation Plan. Section 1.8b of Reclamation Plan 5.0, Attachment A, Technical Plans and Specifications, describes “Possible submittal to, and review by, DRC for approval” of design modifications. Attachment A needs to be revised to indicate that the DRC must review and approve all design modifications to the Reclamation Plan. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011 :Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011 :Attachment D, Radiation Protection Manual for Reclamation September 2011 August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 19/1: R313-24; 10CFR40.42(J): Regulatory Guidance Page 107 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-24; 10 CFR 40.42(J); INT 19/1: REGULATORY GUIDANCE REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24 incorporates 10 CFR 40.42(j) by reference: As the final step in decommissioning, the licensee shall--(1) Certify the disposition of all licensed material, including accumulated wastes, by submitting a completed NRC Form 314 or equivalent information; and (2) Conduct a radiation survey of the premises where the licensed activities were carried out and submit a report of the results of this survey, unless the licensee demonstrates in some other manner that the premises are suitable for release in accordance with the criteria for decommissioning in 10 CFR part 20, subpart E or, for uranium milling (uranium and thorium recovery) facilities, Criterion 6(6) of Appendix A to this part. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Specifications, Sections 6.4 Guidance: Please revise the decommissioning plan to reference and incorporate current guidance, namely NUREG-1757 “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance”; NUREG-1575 “Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)”; and NUREG-1575 Supplement 1 “Multi-agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment Manual (MARSAME)” Response (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The decommissioning plan will be revised to incorporate reference to the applicable guidance documents. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: This document references the use of NUREG-5849: “Manual for Conducting Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termination” as the applicable guidance document. The current NRC guidance documents for decommissioning are NUREG-1757 “Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance”; NUREG-1575 “Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)”; and NUREG-1575 Supplement 1 “Multi-agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment Manual (MARSAME)”. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011: Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 108 of 117 INTERROGATORY WHITE MESA REC PLAN REV 5.0 R313-24,;10 CFR 40 APPENDIX A CRITERION 6(6); INT 20/1: SCOPING, CHARACTERIZATION, AND FINAL SURVEYS REGULATORY BASIS: UAC R313-24 incorporates by reference 10 CFR 40 Appendix A Criterion 6(6): The design requirements in this criterion for longevity and control of radon releases apply to any portion of a licensed and/or disposal site unless such portion contains a concentration of radium in land, averaged over areas of 100 square meters, which, as a result of byproduct material, does not exceed the background level by more than: (i) 5 picocuries per gram (pCi/g) of radium-226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over the first 15 centimeters (cm) below the surface, and (ii) 15 pCi/g of radium- 226, or, in the case of thorium byproduct material, radium-228, averaged over 15-cm thick layers more than 15 cm below the surface. INTERROGATORY STATEMENT: 1. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Specifications, Sections 6.6 Scoping Surveys & Figure A-1: Provide a figure identifying the areas and survey grid sizes. Clarify how use of the large grids and the spacing shown in Figure A-1 will ensure compliance with the 100 square meter criteria. Explain how samples will be collected from these larger grids. Response 1 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Using process knowledge and site history, Energy Fuels Resources (EFR) will identify areas of the site where the type of contamination is generally homogeneous (that is a comparable contaminant signature) and the geology is similar. At this time, EFR expects delineate two areas: tailings and an associated windblown area, and ore storage area and an associated windblown area. Each area within the restricted area has been divided into sub-areas of size 30 meter by 30 meters for the scoping gamma radiation survey. Contamination is probable in these sub-areas and, following remediation, they would correspond to Class 1 or Class 2 MARSSIM areas. The gamma radiation survey plan shown in Figure A.1 has been revised and is attached as the Revised Figure A.1. The 30 meter by 30 meter area will cover each of the 10 m cells (blocks in the drawing) within each survey sub-area. Effectively, a pattern of three transects per 30 meters provides coverage at the 10 meter by 10 meter area, and this is suitable for the scoping survey. If any measurement within the 30 meter by 30 meter area exceeds the action limit, a more detailed survey will be conducted within the 10 meter by 10 meter block(s) which exceeded the action limit. Areas where wind-blown contamination may be present will be divided into similar sub- areas and the survey will continue outward from the restricted area until a buffer area of gamma radiation radioactivity below the sum rule limit has been established. This will bound the area for remediation and final status surveys. Alternatively, gamma radiation scanning using the GPS-integrated system will be conducted with a similar density as used in the Ludlum-19 methodology during the August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 109 of 117 scoping surveys. As before, if any measurement exceeds the action limit, a more detailed survey will be conducted locally. The scanning gamma radiation levels from the scoping survey will be used to assist in selecting locations for sample collection to develop the initial scoping level prediction correlation. Locations where the sum rule is expected to be 0.5, 1 and 2 (corresponding to incremental Ra-226 concentrations of 2.5, 5 and 10 pCi/g) will be selected, based on historic knowledge and field observations, to accurately reflect the relationship near the decision point. In addition, locations with higher concentrations, or areas where substantial disequilibrium is anticipated, will be sampled. 2. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.6 Scoping Surveys: Provide details (including information on instrument sensitivity) on the beta gamma radiation instruments that will be used for the scoping surveys. Indicate the frequency of calibration checks, daily operational checks, and other QA/QC requirements for the instruments. Also indicate whether these same instruments (used during facility operations) will be used for subsequent characterization, remediation, and final survey work. Response 2 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Gamma radiation surveys will be conducted either with the existing Ludlum-19 methodology that has been used for previous remediation at White Mesa or with a GPS- integrated system using 2 inch by 2 inch sodium iodide (NaI) detectors, or the equivalent. As indicated in the Mill’s Radiation Protection Reclamation Manual, each existing instrument (Ludlum 19) used will be calibrated by an off-site 3rd party, every 6 months. Daily function checks will be conducted and documented each morning before use. This information will be housed in the Radiation Department. A function check is also performed once the instruments return from calibration. This function check is documented, and the daily checks are compared against this initial function check. If the daily checks are off by more than ±10%, the instrument is considered no longer reliable and must be sent in for calibration. All function checks are performed using a Cs-137 check source, similar to the 3rd party calibration laboratory. The gamma radiation detectors to be used for the integrated-GPS methodology would be 2 inch by 2 inch sodium iodide detectors (e.g. Ludlum 44-10 or equivalent) with a ratemeter (e.g. Ludlum 2221 or equivalent) equipped with RS-232 export. The data is exported to a GPS data logger for availability for mapping and survey interpretation. These detectors are sensitive to environmental gamma radiation levels and typically provide suitable precision for gamma radiation correlations below a level of 5 pCi/g. Similar procedures to those currently used with the EFR Ludlum-19 methodology would be developed, including for example, calibration and daily checks, if the GPS-integrated methodology approach is selected August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 110 of 117 3. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.6 Scoping Surveys: Explain how areas contaminated with radium, thorium, and uranium will be identified and surveyed to ensure they will not result in a dose that is greater than the radium standard alone. Response 3 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. A gamma radiation level that provides confidence that the sum rule is less than unity for the survey unit will be established. This will be derived from the correlation between gamma radiation and the sum rule from measurement data collected during the scoping survey. The gamma radiation survey data will be analyzed to determine the extent of contamination requiring remediation in each area based on this correlation. 4. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.6 Scoping Surveys: Identify what types of samples (e.g., grab or composite samples) will be collected to support developing the gamma correlation. Explain how locations for taking these samples will be selected. State how many correlations will be developed and how they will differ from each other. Response 4 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Soil samples collected during the scoping survey will be grab samples from locations determined based on institutional knowledge and site history to ensure spatial coverage, homogeneous areas relative to contamination type and geology and the range of gamma radiation levels recorded in the scoping gamma radiation survey. At each sampling location, a static gamma radiation measurement over a one minute duration will be recorded with the same instrumentation and height above the soil as used in the scanning surveys. Based on experience, the incremental gamma radiation corresponding to 5.0 pCi/g Ra-226 is approximately 5,800 cpm for an un-collimated 2 inch NaI detector. Selection of sample locations will ensure that locations corresponding to incremental concentrations of 2.5, 5 and 10 pCi/g are selected to optimize the prediction uncertainty at the 5 pCi/g Ra-226 incremental concentration. Correlations between the sum rule and gamma radiation will be developed with potentially different relationships depending on the area. It is expected that the relationships will generally not be dependent on the mixture of radionuclides in each area. Most of the incremental gamma radiation is likely to be associated with Ra-226. U- nat and Th-230 are weak gamma radiation emitters compared to Ra-226; however, expectations are that these concentrations are equal to or less than the Ra-226 concentrations. For example, ore will have these radionuclides generally in equilibrium and tailings will be depleted in uranium relative to Ra-226. However, there may be small areas with elevated Th-230 due to specific process wastes (e.g. raffinate crystals). August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 111 of 117 Differences in the relationship may be more dependent on variations in background due potentially to different geology. The correlations will be evaluated for the differences that depend on the area and the amount of precision (scatter of actual sum rule versus predicted sum rule). The target (two sigma) absolute uncertainty for mean predictions of the sum rule will be 0.2 at the decision point where the sum rule equals one; that is, the 95% confidence intervals when the mean prediction equals “1” will be 0.80 to 1.2 for the sum rule. 5. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.6 Scoping Surveys: Identify the analytes including radioisotopes for which samples will be analyzed by chemical analysis and identify the preferred analytical method. Response 5 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Soil samples will be analyzed using methods with minimum detection limit (MDL) that is no greater than 10% of the concentration limit developed from the radium benchmark approach. The current methods used by the laboratories utilized by EFR are shown in Table 1 and all meet the MDL objective noted above. The analytes and methodology are given in the following Table 1. Table 1 Analytical Methods and Method Detection Limits Radionuclide Method RBD Benchmark MDL Ra-226 E903.0 5 pCi/g 0.2 pCi/g U-nat SW6020 Standard RL 545 pCi/g 0.01 pCi/g Th-230 E908.0 46 pCi/g 0.2 pCi/g 6. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.6 Scoping Surveys: Provide information on how other materials that may be left will be identified during scoping surveys. Identify additional survey procedures for alpha beta and gamma surface surveys as appropriate. Response 6 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 112 of 117 With respect to remediation of non-radiological hazardous constituents, NRC guidance in NUREG-1620, Section 5.2.2 states: “The decommissioning plan must address the non-radiological hazardous constituents of the byproduct material according to 10 CFR 40 Appendix A Criterion 6(7). For windblown tailings areas, meeting the surface Ra-226 standard should be adequate to control these constituents in soil. A tailings cell cover that meets Appendix A criteria should control, minimize, or eliminate post closure escape of non-radiological constituents into surface water and the atmosphere. However any unusual or extenuating circumstances related to such constituents should be discussed in the reclamation plan or decommissioning plan in relation to protection of public health and the environment and should be evaluated by the staff.” EFR has reviewed the history of Mill operations and has identified the following two incidents which may be considered to have generated “unusual or extenuating circumstances” with respect to reclamation. Ammonium Sulfate Tank Area In response to a Stipulated Consent Agreement between EFR and the Director of the Utah Division of Radiation Control (“DRC”), EFR performed Phase I of a Nitrate Contamination Investigation described in a May 6, 2011 Investigation Plan approved by DRC. The Phase I investigation identified soil contamination near the Mill’s ammonium sulfate storage tanks, specifically ammonia as N, and nitrate plus nitrate as N, which DRC attributed to spillage from storage and handling of ammonium sulfate process reagent. Because the attributed source of the contamination is not associated with ores or other sources of radiological contamination, EFR considers this area to represent an unusual circumstance in which non-radiological contamination may not be captured by excavation to the Ra-226 standard. EFR plans to remediate this contamination consistent with agreements existing or currently under review by DRC, as described below. EFR entered a revised Stipulated Consent Agreement (“revised SCA”) with DRC on September 30, 2011. Pursuant to the revised SCA, EFR submitted a revised Corrective Action Plan (“CAP”) which, among other commitments, required that EFR: • determine the physical extent of the soil contamination observed at the ammonium sulfate, including an estimate of the volume of the contaminated soils down to but not including bedrock, and an estimate of the surface area at or above the estimated location of the contaminated soil volume; • cover the Contaminated Surface Area with at least six inches of concrete, to the extent not already covered by concrete or existing buildings, and August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 113 of 117 • remove the Contaminated Soil Volume and dispose of the contaminated soils in the Mill's tailings impoundments prior to site closeout. The following process will be used to estimate the volume of contaminated soil to be removed during reclamation. Once the total area to be covered by concrete has been determined based on the borehole analyses, the area will be multiplied by the average depth to bedrock, as determined from the logging of the boreholes. Based on the geologic logging performed during the soil probe sampling in the Phase I Investigation in June, 2011, borings number GP-25B and GP-26B in the vicinity of the ammonium sulfate tanks indicated depth to bedrock of 19 feet and 16 feet, respectively. These values will be included, along with depths determined during the additional Geoprobe sampling to develop an average depth to bedrock. This average depth to bedrock will be multiplied by the area of contamination. The revised CAP and resulting Consent Order is currently undergoing public review and comment. Following public comment and finalization of the CAP and Consent Order, EFR will characterize the areal extent of contamination consistent with the schedule in the revised CAP, and, at the time of Mill reclamation, excavate the contaminated soils associated with the ammonium sulfate storage area consistent with the requirements of the CAP and Consent Order. Claricone Failure and Removal Action The Mill experienced a spill from the failure of a partially below-grade clarifier (the “Claricone”) on April 12, 2012. The spilled contents of the Claricone were expected to consist of an estimated 28,000 gallons of in-process solutions containing approximately 190 lbs of natural uranium and approximately 3,370 lbs of sulfuric acid. During April 2012 contaminated soil was removed and disposed in Cell 3 as follows: a. All soils visibly wet, stained or discolored were excavated until uncontaminated dry background soils remained. b. The bottom and sides of the excavation were scanned by microR meter. When the bottom or sides of the excavation indicated gamma levels greater than background levels, the excavation was resumed, additional contaminated soil was removed, and the bottom and sides of the excavation were re-scanned until all surfaces resulted in gamma levels less than or equal to cleanup background. (Cleanup background was defined as two times the average of four measured background readings. This approach accounted for the contribution to background of gamma radiation from other nearby process equipment such as the clarifier, thickener, and CCD impounds.) When the bottom and sides of the excavation indicated gamma levels of less than cleanup background as defined above, the excavation was considered complete, and the area was prepared for backfill and re-grading. August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 114 of 117 EFR considered that the excavation, as conducted based on residual gamma screening was sufficient to ensure that all radiological and non-radiological constituents associated with the spill had been addressed. However, DRC advised EFR in a letter dated August 8, 2012 that because confirmation sampling was not conducted subsequent to soil removal, DRC required that EFR provide additional measures to ensure all contamination has been removed. EFR has proposed to provide a conservative over- estimate of contaminated soils to be excavated at the time of reclamation. EFR will provide a report to DRC describing and justifying the estimated excavation volume. Following approval of the report, and at the time of reclamation, EFR will excavate soil in the former Claricone area consistent with the approved Excavation Proposal. 7. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.7 Characterization and Remediation Control Surveys: Explain how many and how samples will be collected to ensure the correlation developed for the scoping is consistent with the characterization and reclamation surveys. Explain how the correlation will be modified to address gamma variations that may arise during decommissioning and reclamation? Response 7 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. The correlations are anticipated to remain the same during the program provided that the vertical gradient of incremental Ra-226 remains similar and that there are not variations in background encountered. Soils after excavation may have higher or lower concentrations than the established background due to differences in soil type. Soil samples will be collected during the verification and these will ensure the relationship is appropriate. These samples may initiate further excavation if the correlation is revised. 8. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.8 Final Survey, Figure A-2 and Attachment B Construction QA/QC Plan, Section 5.4.1: Please clarify the terminology used in the two documents. Ensure that the activities described are consistent. Provide details on how the 10% of locations are selected for sampling. Demonstrate that collection of four samples as shown on Figure A-2 is sufficiently representative of the entire 100-square-meter area. Explain whether samples taken from the four sample locations identified in Figure A-2 will be analyzed separately or will be composited. Response 8 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Locations for final verification will be established based on a combined selection of sampling points using process history and a random sampling approach for each investigation area. Following a final status gamma radiation survey, a minimum of 15 blocks in the survey area will be measured to confirm the gamma radiation guideline level. For these 15 samples, the five 10 meter by 10 meter blocks with the highest average gamma radiation will be sampled along with another 10 sample blocks randomly selected from the area.This will allow inspection of the highest gamma August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 115 of 117 radiation blocks (which are more likely to have higher radionuclide concentrations) while verifying the relationship and provide a measured soil sample average for the area. Multiple sampling locations within a 10 meter by 10 meter block provides a more precise measurement of the average sum rule for the block than would a single sample location. The advantage of a composite sample is that the sample will more closely represent the average over the block yet only one sample requires measurement. The advantage of measurement of each sampling location (e.g. the four in Figure A.2 of Attachment A) is that the laboratory uncertainty is averaged out amongst the samples. For example, if the true concentrations were the same at each sampling point, the average of four locations will average out the laboratory uncertainty more than the measurement of a single composite. Based on achieving the desired MDLs for each radionuclide, a composite sample from each 10 meter by 10 meter area is considered acceptable. Four locations per 10 meter by 10 meter block has been selected as appropriate for the site as contamination is generally expected to have smooth spatial variability (is not “spotty”) particularly following remediation. Further, the soil sampling is largely confirmatory of the more extensive gamma radiation measurements and correlation. 9. Refer to Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications, Sections 6.8 Final Survey, Figure A-2: Explain how the areas where final survey soil sample results exceed the criteria will be addressed. State the basis for determining whether additional removal will be required. A soil sample that exceeds the criteria may also indicate a problem with the gamma correlation. Since the majority of the area will be released based on the gamma correlation, explain how the gamma correlation will be reviewed to ensure the use of the correlation in place of sampling is still valid. Response 9 (August 15, 2012): This response supersedes the response provided in the response document submitted May 31, 2012. Although not required by MARSSIM for the survey unit, further remediation on a sampled block will be conducted if the unity rule determined with the soil sample exceeds “1” for the soil layer. The remediation will follow the general approach used but would involve a more extensive gamma radiation survey to define the area and to ensure that the remediation is complete. A verification soil sample will be collected to confirm that the sampled block meets the sum rule. The revised, if necessary, correlation relationship will be implemented to determine if there are any 10 meter by 10 meter blocks with a sum rule prediction that exceeds “1”. Any blocks exceeding the sum rule will be remediated, for example by removing an additional lift and resurveying. BASIS FOR INTERROGATORY: 1. The discussion in Section 6.6 does not clearly identify the survey grid sizes that will be used in the described areas. Figure A-1 describes a serpentine gamma survey path, but this also indicates that a total of 3 transects across the 30 meter grid will be made. With each transect representing only a 1- meter-square area, a significant majority of the grid is not surveyed, and compliance with the 100- August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 116 of 117 square-meter standard cannot be documented. It is unclear how the 30m x 30m grid relates to the 50m x50m grid. 2. Without more detailed information on the instrument that will be used it is impossible to determine if the sensitivity is appropriate to verify compliance with the standard. 3. While the radium standard is appropriate for much of the site, as mentioned in the technical specifications there are areas that are contaminated with a combination of nuclides, how will these be identified, and what other survey procedures will be used to ensure the uranium and thorium are addressed. 4. The general criteria for identifying appropriate sample locations should be developed to ensure the resulting correlation is appropriate. Typically correlations are generated based on grab samples but the discussion does not detail how the samples will be collected. Also it appears that multiple correlations may be developed so proper communication regarding which correlation is appropriate for each area is necessary to ensure compliance with the soil standard. 5. Specifics on the analyses to be performed are necessary to evaluate the proposed correlations. The analytical methods need to be identified to ensure the appropriate analytical costs are included in the cast estimate. 6. Additional definition and description is required to provide assurance that all contaminants will be identified and properly processed during decommissioning and reclamation. 7. The gamma correlation that is developed for the scoping surveys may be valid, how will variations in gamma rates associated with excavation depth and differences in material at depth be addresses. 8. The radiological survey descriptions in the documents are not consistent. The characterization survey described in Attachment B is different than the characterization remediation survey described in Attachment A. Without consistent terminology and survey descriptions it is impossible to evaluate the survey descriptions. To ensure that collecting samples at only 10% of the remediated grids is sufficient, the criteria used as the basis for the 10% must be provided. Typically, composite soil samples for a 100 square meter area include between 5 and 11 aliquots to ensure the data is representative of the entire area. 9. The plan should contain a commitment to perform a radium-gamma correlation on the verification data, to track soil samples that fail the Ra-226 criteria, and to perform additional cleanup after a verification soil sample exceeds the Ra-226 standard. Just cleaning the failed grid is not adequate because the failed sample could indicate that the gamma value may not be conservative and that some of the unsampled grids may also fail to meet the standard. For example, the plan could indicate that neighboring grids would also be analyzed for Ra-226 or, if the number of failed grids is excessive, the gamma guideline would be adjusted downward and areas further remediated, as necessary. REFERENCES: Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011; Attachment A, Plans and Technical Specifications Denison Mines (USA) Corp., 2011. Reclamation Plan, White Mesa Mill, Blanding, Utah, Radioactive Materials License No. UT1900479, Revision 5.0, Appendix E, September 2011: Attachment B, Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan August 15, 2012 Interrogatory 20/1: R313-24; 10CFR40; Appendix A Criterion 6(6): Scoping, Characterization, and Final Surveys Page 117 of 117 U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Personal Communication (email) with Mr. Eric Martinez, Application Developer. May 16. 2 ,.....--~---------/ /'1 I I I \ j 8 \ \,,........---4 ----5 -------.......6, \ \ \ I I, I 9//1 -"------------........ e .$Q) E a C") 1 E o...... -,",/...._"SCANNING PATH :1 fEiale:UT White Mesa Mill loata:08-09-12 IOl1lftedBy:GM Energy Fuels Inc. Tocallon: ••Author.HR Dale Bv County:SanJuan REVISIONS Proleot: ..TYPICAL SCANNING PATH -SCOPING SURVEY """"'::':=--1.---"::-1 RECLAMATION PLAN REV.3.2-FINAL 1-==--1......::·'_1 FIGURE A-1 • 30 m x 30 m grid showing the 10 m x 10m interior cells. • If anyone of the scanned numbered cells meet or exceed the action limit another S-shaped scan will be conducted inside the numbered cell. ~..:qo i iii ~s~ g ~...JI::>s~~L...;.L..;;;;;,;;;""",l,__.L.._..;,;,;,;.__....l._,;;;,;;;.~~~~_~;;.........